home

George Zimmerman Statements and Reenactment Released

Attorney Mark O'Mara has released George Zimmerman's written statement, his audio interviews and the video of the re-enactment of the scene (which disappointingly doesn't show anything but a parked car -- it's really an audio of the re-enactment.)

All of the recordings are available here.

I've only read the written statement and listened to the re-enactment so far, so I'll update later today with my thoughts after I've had an opportunity to listen to all the interviews.

Update: For reference, here is the transcript of the 911 call.

< Rep. Jared Polis Grills DEA Chief on Dangers of Meth vs Marijuana | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I think it needs to be pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by leftwig on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    that Zimmerman is going to sound at his worst in these interviews.  He had not been privy to his own dispatcher call, so he's getting asked questions about the order of things that are known on the call, but he is trying to recall simply from memory of the events that night.  

    For example, Serino asks him about why he got out of the car and that his statement about getting out of the car to get an address didn't match the tape.  While the tape surely seems to show that he got out of the car as Martin took off running, the tape also shows that Zimmerman got out of the car after the dispatcher makes a request for information "which way is he running".  Zimmerman doesn't appear to recall this question from the dispatcher in his interviews, but now that he's heard the tape, he'll likely say, oh yea, now I remember him asking that, so I got out to see which way Martin was running, then when I lost sight of him, I decided to walk to get an address because I was asked for one earlier and I could give that to the police so they could locate me when they arrived.

    I'm not saying this is exactly what his testimony will be, just pointing out that with this additional information in hand, it can help him remember and clear up some the "what led you to do this" sort of questioning.  There are some inconsistencies in his statements and the dispatcher recording, but I think they can be reconciled enough to believe he wasn't just making stuff up in his recollection of the events.

    I've been there before too (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:36:09 PM EST
    I don't know if this is the place for an anecdote, but as a defendant once upon a time in a self defense case myself (though only assault, and won that one), I know what it's like to be questioned like that while trying to remember details and times under stress.

    What I gleaned from this is that Zimmerman's memory of events was consistent:  He remembered Trayvon circling the truck, he remembered getting out, walking through the T, where he first saw Trayvon, where he ran, etc...

    ...but had trouble recalling the timeframe and order of specific details.

    I can SO relate.

    Parent

    Expy (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    Some of the gaps in your factual assumptions have been filled, and it is in error to say there is no report addressing the question of gunshot residue on Zimmerman or his clothing.

    The angle of entry is nearly straight in.  The shot was fired with the muzzle of the gun in or nearly in contact with Martin's outerwear.

    I know of no SPD contention that the forensic evidence of the shot is inconsistent with Zimmerman's account of the situation at the moment he fired the shot.

    Zimmerman's account has Martin separating after the shot is fired, I think a sort of "sitting up," and then, I think, Zimmerman isn't exactly clear on the details of how positions reversed to have Zimmerman holding Martin spread eagle, face down.

    Agree that the forensic evidence and contemporaneous recordings have superior weight.

    Was there gunshot residue? (none / 0) (#107)
    by expy on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    The shot was fired with the muzzle of the gun in or nearly in contact with Martin's outerwear.

    Did the report show residue on Martins' clothing?

    I didn't offer an opinion one way or another in my above post -- I merely pointed out the forensic issues that would be significant to a determination.  

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:40:00 PM EST
    The FDLE firearm lab examined Martin's clothing and even took a sample of it (outer and inner) and Zimmerman's firearm, mag and ammunition to test. They indicated a contact wound. The FDLE firearm report is in the first discovery packet.

    Parent
    Contact wound means self defense (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Steve27 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:59:03 PM EST
    Zimmerman cannot be legally faulted if he shoots someone at close range who is beating on him. All the evidence points to Martin being the aggressor. The circling the vehicle and staring at GZ during the 911 call. TM returning to GZ's location after he had run off. The fight wounds on GZ compared to none on TM.  Everything else is what do you remember during your life and death physical struggle with the guy who was beating on you.

    Parent
    expy, no offence, but you gotta catch up. (none / 0) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    expy's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    because it contained factual misinformation. Not intentional, I know, but still, I'm not going to have it spread by leaving it up.

    Parent
    "The suspect" (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by amateur on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    A few things I find interesting but are probably not relevant:

    GZ refers to TM as "the suspect" throughout his written statement (ironically called "suspect statement" by the police).

    He says he tried to restrain TM after he shot him, holding his hands away from his body.  I'm pretty sure that's a contradiction with the first witness and the police who both said the body was on its stomach with hands under him.

    He says he tells the first witness on the scene that he has already called 911 but he really hadn't.  He'd called the NEN which would not include an ambulance for the guy he'd just shot.

    Didn't Kutcher state that Zimmerman told her (none / 0) (#161)
    by leftwig on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    to call 911?  I'm guessing that would be what he meant that they had already been called.

    Parent
    No, based on the evidence so far (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:16:56 PM EST
    This should be dismissed at a "Stand Your Ground" hearing, and George should not have been arrested in the first place.

    Railroads and mobs. Don't we love them?

    How's about (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    People stumbling around after they've been shot, the fact it was dark and Zimmerman might have been off a few feet here or there, it was traumatic and fast paced, we don't know where exactly Zimmerman went to the ground, and etc?
    Besides, I hardly think Trayvon died where he was shot, he had to have moved some not only to end up where he did, but how he did.

    According to GZ in the reenactme, GZ restrained TM (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:19:54 PM EST
    immediately after shooting him by getting him onto his stomach and sprreading his arms. There seems to have been a witness to that, because GZ asked him to help. GZ does not mention TM moving at all under his own power after he was shot.

    Parent
    Simply because he doesn't mention it (none / 0) (#211)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
    He was never asked about that in any of the evidence we have, and I suppose he was more focused on the cop when the cop first arrived and restained him.

    Parent
    No, he not only does not mention it, (none / 0) (#215)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    he specifically says it does not happen  he says he shot him, sat up, slid out from under him, and laid him out with his arms spread.

    Parent
    Zimmerman stated that (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:55:43 PM EST
    he stumbled before falling. Witness John stated he witnessed them shifting several feet, onto the sidewalk, within a few seconds. This could have been repeated many times before he began observing.

    The struggle obviously was not stationery and none of the witness ever said it was as far as I know. MMA matches move all over the place even when one of the fighters is straddling another, until they reach a corner or edge of the ring.

    why nit-picking will not convict (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by PeterOL on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:43:53 PM EST
    In science it is recognized there is a big difference between the words "precision" and "accuracy," because the former can never make up for conditions where the latter may have large variation.

    Apparently that key distinction is not recognized by many legal pundits in this case.

    The problem is that Zimmerman never expected the events, as they were unfolding, to be of such importance that he had to concentrate on every detail and remember it exactly. So, to "catch" him for murder, because his statement is not as "precise" as someone (antagonistic to him) may "like," does not mean too much in the normal give and take of variances an honest witness can have in real life.

    Here is a key part of Zimmerman's statement:

    "The suspect once again disappeared between the back of some houses. The dispatch once again asked for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispatch asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went. I told the dispatch I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign & the direction the suspect went. The dispatch told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was in route. As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said "you got a problem" I said "no" the suspect said "you do now"."

    So he does remember a jumble of events that occurred around the same time (that is the way the human mind operates) that when all pieced together, fits most if not all of the dispatcher tape. Indeed, expecting him to remember with 100% accuracy is not reasonable -- and there are innumerable studies on human memory and witness that would back up that conclusion. We have the exact tape and, obviously Zimmerman is not expected to have a tape recorder in his mind.

    For example, he says in the statement: "I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispatch asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went. I told the dispatch I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign & the direction the suspect went."

    So all he says above, is consistent with the goals of: a) following (after leaving his car) to try to keep the suspect, who disappeared, in sight; b) getting an exact street address that could be usable by the police; and c) giving a visual description of the direction the suspect went that would also be usable by the police when they arrived. I see no problems whatsoever with that testimony.

    Nit-picking for "precision" to convict for murder in an environment when Zimmerman is to be lauded for how good he did remember such traumatic events after the fact is not justified. Zimmerman got a 90 grade on his memory, not a failing grade convicting him of murder.

    Casey was guilty of lying but not murder (5.00 / 3) (#231)
    by PeterOL on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    A big thing to keep in mind is that in the Casey Anthony case, the jury found her guilty of lying to the police BUT NOT of murder.

    In Casey's case is was very clear she lied. Not like much of the `nit-picking' nonsense many keep putting forth in blogs about this case and where much of which is based on distorted media reports (such as the media reporting that Zimmerman said Martin "jumped out from the bushes" when Zimmerman's statements are much more uncertain about Martin's hiding, only that he approached from his rear); Crump fictions (such as him saying the dispatcher instructed Zimmerman to not "pursue" Martin when the dispatcher did not use that word and only asked if Zimmerman was "following" a word not loaded with implicit meanings); and unrealistic presumptions about how witness memory works in real life.


    Some quick answers (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:12:21 AM EST
    I have never seen an autopsy report that didn't include photographs, especially of a gunshot wound.

    Florida sheilds autopsy photos from public release. They will not be viewed until the trial and even then probably won't be released to the media.

    I think it depends on whether the ME and firearms examiner say this is consistent with a contact wound.

    The FDLE Firearms Lab report states the gunshot is consistent with contact range. The report can be found on page 120 of this packet. They tested this using samples of Martin's clothing and used Zimmerman's firearm, magazine and ammunition.

    What does the forensic examination of Zimmerman's gun reveal?  Is there any of Martin's blood or tissue on the gun?

    The FDLE Biology Lab report starts at page 104 from the document above. Short answer, none of the blood on Zimmerman's firearm could be identified as Martin's.

    Another potential inconsistency (5.00 / 0) (#246)
    by Dilbert By Day on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 03:56:48 AM EST
    At the 12:28 marker in the reenactment video, Zimmerman places the location of his firearm on his right hip, or more specifically, on the upper right buttock area above his trouser pocket. This is a common holster location which facilitates concealment.

    We know from reading the Police Report that GZ was wearing an "inside the waistband" hip holster (IWB). Here's a brief clip which illustrates a similar holster, worn in the approximate position indicated by George Zimmerman (5 o'clock position).

    The question becomes obvious. If Martin was sitting astride Zimmerman's waist/hips in the mounted position (at roughly center of mass) with knees bent, could he see Zimmerman's weapon located at the "5 o'clock" even if he glanced down? Even with GZ's jacket elevated above his waistband? Zimmerman suggests that Martin saw the weapon and reached for it. Speculative: How do you accomplish that if you're sitting on it?

    I hope a few of you will click the links and weigh-in; I'd be interested reading in your opinions.

    I wish the reenactment had been more (5.00 / 0) (#251)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:01:23 AM EST
    thorough on the part of the police. They could have had one of the policemen act as Trayvon and walk or run exactly where and how GZ told them he was walking. That way we could know what he meant by 'circling' the car, 'checking me out', etc.

    Also they spent very little time trying to reenact the struggle that led to the shooting.  The only thing we know for certain is exactly where the body ended up. Why didn't they try to elicit the sequence of events that got it there from where they stopped walking?

    Just wish the opportunity had been better used.

    Beaten to death in self defense (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:05:53 AM EST
    The law only allows us to use as much force as is necessary to make the threat stop.  You say that this evidence can be arranged so as to justify Trayvon beating Zimmerman to death, and I'm not able to envision how Martin obtains the justification to use force for a minute, after he has Zimmerman in an inferior position.

    Serino opines that Martin had a right to perceive Zimmerman reaching into his pocket as a threat, under the circumstances.  I can imagine that being justification for a punch in the snoot, or a bear hug, or some other use of force to get Zimmerman to show his hands and relent in any threat of force.  And I can imagine that the first blow could have killed Zimmerman - hit his head on a rock or something, and a sort of "freak" injury resulting in death.  Martin would be able to argue that he perceived a threat, acted on it, and then held fire pending Zimmerman's reaction.  He probably would not be charged with battery.  But that same "reach in the pocket" perceived threat doesn't justify a 10 second beat down, let alone a longer one.

    At any rate, "beat to death in self defense" is very difficult, maybe impossible to justify.  But, I'm open to being persuaded by a scenario that admits it.  The next difficulty will be to produce evidence to support that.  The prosecution has Zimmerman holding Martin at disadvantage for an extended period, so not only doesn't suggest that Martin was engaged in a justified extended beating of Zimmerman, but argues the opposite, that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, in the position of advantage.

    Whose Initiative? (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:39:22 AM EST
    The investigators probe Zimmerman's state of mind before the confrontation - is he afraid, why does he have suspicion, why did he get out of his truck?  There is a general theme that investigators think Zimmerman sought a confrontation.

    If Zimmerman sought a confrontation, why would he wait until Martin got out of sight (ran out of sight, if you believe the NEN call) to get out of his truck?  If Zimmerman sought a confrontation, he had plenty of opportunities to obtain one, like when Martin was near his truck, or circling his truck, or when he spies Martin (he says) in Taafe's yard.  Why wait until "the guy" is out of sight, to go for a confrontation?

    Zimmerman was asked something like why didn't he roll down his window and talk to "the guy."  Zimmerman said that he didn't want a confrontation.  I find that to be consistent with his past conduct when calling for police to investigate.  If his past actions are any indicator, he followed Martin to maintain visual contact, not to obtain a close confrontation.

    Various replies (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Lina Inverse on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:47:28 AM EST
    I too have lost the ability to directly reply.

    Mojo56: Note that if given a free path the shell casing would be ejected some distance from where it was fired.  Depending on the gun, both design and the particular one, anywhere from somewhat forward to right back in the shooters face (my carry gun had the latter problem until some very careful filing of the ejector fixed it).

    marvc: I have no idea, but Zimmerman can "take the stand" without being subject to cross examination at the trial simply by introducing all his contemporaneous statements (which include some hostile cross examination) ... and since they were made right after the shooting, I at least would give them stronger weight than anything he might say many months later.

    Note to all: we're talking about deer shot with rifles, which deliver smaller diameter bullets at significantly higher velocites and energy.  

    Mitch Guthman: You're welcome, primary sources are always to be preferred.

    8. I think if we (that is you and I) had a better knowledge of anatomy we'd roughly know the angles.  The examiner specifies exactly where the bullet  entered, several points along its path, and roughly where it ended up (and of course it doesn't follow a perfectly straight line once in the body).

    Dilbert By Day: as it turns out, that's where and how I carry my concealed handgun.  And this incident has prompted me to think about the consequences of ending up on my back before I could draw it.

    I believe the answer to your question, and mine as to why it took so long for him to shoot, is found in Zimmerman's written report:

    I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continued to yell "Help." As I slid, the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm....

    It sounds like he, in "sliding", also rolled his body.  That would be necessary for him to draw his weapon, and therefore is also consistant with his deduction that Martin saw the weapon after he moved.

    I would also note that even unconsciously he'd likely be rolling in that direction because at the 5 o'clock position the grip of his gun would be pressing into his lower back or thereabouts, it would be very uncomfortable, although nothing compared to what was happening to this head.


    Location (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 08:18:04 AM EST
    Zimmerman was asked something like why didn't he roll down his window and talk to "the guy."  Zimmerman said that he didn't want a confrontation.  I find that to be consistent with his past conduct when calling for police to investigate.  If his past actions are any indicator, he followed Martin to maintain visual contact, not to obtain a close.

    GZ said he saw TM enter the back yard area then emerge from the backyard area. TM then approaches GZ's car and circles it. At that point, for whatever reason, TM runs back toward whence he came. GZ leaps out of his car to keep TM in sight
    for the soon to arrive constables. While TM was readily visible at the T while he was emerging and GZ is in his car, TM is much less visible while running back to that location with GZ now outside of his vehicle moving quickly in the same direction. Ultimatley GZ loses sight of TM and continues up the sidewalk to look for a street sign.

    Serino's "pandering" comment (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by heidelja on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 08:33:59 AM EST
    Was TM shot more so because GZ got out of his vehicle or because GZ had a gun? If Serino had said the latter (which might make more sense) it would have been "counter culture" since he carries a gun! In other words, he takes for granted that one can carry a gun if they so choose.

    An issue for many at the outset was that GZ had a gun and should not have. Other details have evolved to be of greater concern for some now. Given the charge, one detail that the state must prove is that GZ acted with a depraved mind. Ironically, no one suggests that GZ had.

    March 16, 2012 Orlando Sentinel: (5.00 / 1) (#260)
    by deanno on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    Published 2 April 2012:

        "Two weeeks ago during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account--that he had acted in self defense."

    The best evidence we have is the testimony og George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16.  "Everything I have is adding up to what he says".

    DeeDee--interview with de la Rionda:

    "He say he ain't gonin run cause he say he right by his father's house"

    So, as a casual observer this indicates to me that the SPD believe GZ's story and still believed it as late as 2 April.  Zimmerman is arrested only 10 days later by IMO a politically motivated Special Prosecutor who had no intention of finding anything else to the contrary.

    DeeDee's remarks indicate that TM had made it back or close to his destination which in my mind destroys the notion that there is a continuing "chasing" or "persuing" of TM by GZ.

    Two more points: Gilbreath ( who signed the PC Affidavit) on the stand 4/20 states that he has "nothing" to contradict GZ's assertion that he was walking back to his truck.

    Brandy Green's bizarre comment made to Fox 35 TV on 2/27--"I live other there, he was sitting on the porch and this man killed him".  NEVER explained and NEVER brought up on any talking head chat shows that I've seen.  Did someone ELSE see TM sitting on Brandy's porch talking to DeeDee on the phone and then tell BG this?  Seems logical to me.

    I don't think the state of Florida has a chance for a conviction in this case, and if GZ had not ticked off the judge there is no way it wouldn't have been dismissed at the SYG hearing.

    Why is the introduction of fact different at trial (5.00 / 3) (#264)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    Heresay is disfavored at trial, because it deprives the jury or judge of an opportunity to judge the credibility of the witness, in person.

    Keep in mind that the burden is on the state to prove its case (murder, here), not on the defendant to prove he is innocent.  The state must introduce the evidence to establish each element of the charged crime.  Hence, saying nothing to the state deprives the state of evidence.

    Most people agree that Zimmerman was foolish to trust the state; and in hindsight, he probably sees the error of his ways.  Some of what he said is helpful to him, and his openness may be, in the long run, a net benefit.  But, look at how the state and the press are focused on his inconsistencies as evidence of guilt; and even some making the case that his consistency on some points is evidence of guilt.  Just the same, if he'd said nothing, there would be arguments that his silence amounts to evidence of guilt.  Serino was quite accurate in his prediction that Zimmerman would be held under a microscope.

    Separately, there is a substantial amount of discussion, raised by Crump, Serino, and others, about Martin's actions being out of character.  This opens the door to probing Martin's character.  Complaints about probing Martin's character are not well taken.  It is not fair to be able to assert "he's non-violent" without being challenged on it; any more than it is fair to claim Zimmerman was not seeking confrontation, without being challenged on that.

    Misc (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by JamTowzy on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:04:22 AM EST
    1. It's important to keep in mind that -- during his long phone call -- GZ did not envision a violent confrontation. He was not slyly lying to the dispatcher to set up an alibi for a crime that he covertly wished to commit. He was simply relaying information as accurately as he could, and dealing with the inherent problem of talking to a distant person who could not see what was happening.

    2. GZ never intended to chase down, confront, tackle or arrest TM. As Cboldt has noted above, it would have gone against his lengthy history of previous interactions. From beginning to end of his call, he only wanted a cop. In addition, he made it clear that he only wanted the cop for the purposes of a talk/interview with TM. GZ never falsified TM's activities into a crime for which an arrest was warranted. The suggestion that he would suddenly want to impulsively tackle TM on first sight in order to apprehend him -- while lacking a fundamental basis for it -- makes zero sense.

    3. While in the car, there were three phases. At first, GZ was just an observer. However, when TM walked toward his car, he began to worry about TM's intentions. There might have been some "fear", but most likely it was less than that. Finally, once TM left his immediate vicinity, his previous experiences with runners kicked in. GZ's change of  mentality is clear on the recording. He displays more disgust than concern. After interpreting the dispatcher's two questions as a request, he groused as he got out of the vehicle and hustled for about 5 seconds before the dispatcher realized the foul-up. It was about as much time as was needed to get to the "T." Once queried about getting out of the  car, GZ was honest with his reply and remained cooperative throughout the rest of the call.

    4. I am not willing to concede that TM was not up to no good. Just because there was no evidence of having committed a crime does not eliminate the possibility that he was snooping around for trouble. He had a history of skirting the law, and probably deserved a juvenile record with what has been documented (especially with property for which he had no explanation). On the night in question, he truly could have been casing properties (including George's vehicle mistakenly). So to castigate GZ's suspicions offhand as being invalid (or as evidence of his penchant to aggressively profile) is a bit much.


    3 Takeaways (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by amateur on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    In trying to sort out what happened, I found it most valuable to compare the video re-enactment with the 2/29 Serino interview in which they take him through his NEN call.  In doing so it seems evident that:

    1. TM didn't circle his car.  In the re-enactment he says TM rounded the T and then came back out to circle his car before returning to the area between the houses.  He says he told the dispatcher as this happened.  In the interview, however, he says that he was parked at the club house when TM "[is] coming to check me out".  Said checking out is determined to mean walking past his truck (as he would on his natural path anyway) and looking at him from about a car length away.

    2. He wasn't punched where he said he was.  In the re-enactment he says he has passed the T and is somewhat west of it when TM closes the distance and he is punched where he stood.  In other accounts he has said that the blow knocked him to the ground.  But in the re-enactment he describes some shoving and stumbling that takes them down TM's path before they hit the ground about three pavements down past the tree.  So either he is punched to the ground where they went down and not at the top of the T, or he was punched at the top of the T but did not go down.

    3. His clearest, most accurate, and most consistent memory appears to be of being told "we don't need you to do that" when asked if hew was following TM. It seems important to him to show that he was not following him.  This may be why he initially claimed that he only got out of his truck to find a street sign -- which could have most quickly been found by driving his truck down the street he was on until he saw one, and is contradicted by his NEN call.

    None of these things mean it wasn't self defense.  But if he is telling a self-serving version of events which paints TM as more menacing than he was and himself as more fearful and less aggressive than he was, and if his memory is poor (as he says) and if he has included things that didn't happen and left things out that did in the part of the story that led up to the confrontation... how can anyone then take his version of the attack/fight/struggle at face value?

    TM had plenty of time to get back to ... (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by deanno on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    Brandy Green's condo.  He was about 25 seconds away.  DeeDee's remarks were that TM TOLD HER he was "right by his father's house". Period.

    If these remarks are accurate then it is beyond question that TM had the opportunity to return to his house but chose NOT to.  He is the one who wanted to confront Zimmerman and inquire about why he's looking at him.

    Brandy's statement (with Tracy right beside her) is in no way a "I can see him now" statement. She says he was killed on her porch, period.  I've seen that tape on YT many times.  There is no question that she thinks Trayvon was shot on her porch.

    And I notice that you didn't remark on Serino's remarks which obviously support Zimmerman.

    Brandy Green's condo.  He was about 25 seconds away.  DeeDee's remarks were that TM TOLD HER he was "right by his father's house". Period.
    If these remarks are accurate then it is beyond question that TM had the opportunity to return to his house but chose NOT to.  He is the one who wanted to confront Zimmerman and inquire about why he's looking at him.

    Brandy's statement (with Tracy right beside her) is in no way a "I can see him now" statement. She says he was killed on her porch, period.  I've seen that tape on YT many times.  There is no question that she thinks Trayvon was shot on her porch.

    And I notice that you didn't remark on Serino's remarks which obviously support Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman jumped out of his car as soon as TM ran.
    Sure TM could have made it Brandy's but he didn't
    Zimmerman was running down the T too. TM would have  had 20 seconds of GZ at least hearing him run down the path if not "looking for a street sign" in the back yard area..

    When Brandy made that statement she and Tracy were looking at the shooting scene so no, she does not think Trayvon was killed on the porch.

    Essentially, I came to the same opinion as Serino.

    Brandy Green's porch statement (5.00 / 1) (#277)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:17:30 PM EST

    alone might have been able to be dismissed but Tracy Martin confirms her claim weeks later in another interview.

    @0:40 in this video interview Tracy Martin states "I knew he was going to the back of the house, he was sitting out there"

    They could have been told this by Chad or they may have found some physical evidence. Their statements are evidence that Trayvon may have made it home before the confrontation and needs to be investigated.

    link to video (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    @0:40 in this video interview Tracy Martin states "I knew he was going to the back of the house, he was sitting out there"


    More Crump lying (4.83 / 6) (#232)
    by PeterOL on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:03:53 PM EST
    More Crump lying.

    In his interview, given in response to the released Zimmerman statement and videos, he says the dispatcher told Zimmerman to not "PURSUE" Martin. The word "pursue" is a word that implies "to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc."

    That word usage (of "pursue") is a lot different from the word "follow" used as in to "follow" for purposes of again trying to get the suspect in sight (to report to the dispatcher) or to see an address to report to the dispatcher ... or a combination of the two.

    No wonder Crump keeps lying by falsely saying the dispatcher used the word "pursue" -- to falsely imply the dispatcher believed Zimmerman was out to "to overtake, capture, kill, etc." Martin (when the dispatcher was only trying to protect Zimmerman from a fleeing suspect).

    As we all know from the tape itself, all the dispatcher says is "are you following him." So he did not say "pursue" as Crump says.

    I had to register and comment because (4.00 / 3) (#236)
    by Uma Spankhurst on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:41:56 PM EST
    the first paragraph of the fifth comment just made my jaw drop. Yes, black youth do say things just like "You got me." It's a very common phrase that is, admittedly, used unusually here. I hear it every single day in my predominantly AA classroom. And since it's a phrase that is spoken and used repeatedly, it's entirely reasonable that Martin would use it here, even if he didn't mean the traditional "You understand me?" or "Can you deliver what I need?" which is what it normally means. In times of crisis, we all revert to linguistic deer trails. He wouldn't say "You killed me." It's just not going to be in his syntactical schema.

    A person who could possibly question it is a person who spend ZERO time around black youth.

    Re: the video walk-through (3.67 / 3) (#243)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:42:51 AM EST
    The video of the next day's "walk-through" seems consistent with the general consensus of the struggle starting around 7:15:30 PM.

    And that's the problem.

    He announces that Martin's running at around 7:11:40 PM, by 7:11:48 PM you hear the Honda's door slam behind him, then you hear him jogging or running, which brings on the whole "are you following?" "we don't need you to" exchange, which ends with his "OK" at 7:12:04 PM and the running sounds stop at 7:12:14 PM.

    He should be right around the "T" at that point, with Trayvon not in sight.

    That leaves another 3:16 until the struggle starts.

    The phone call went on for another 1:25, until 7:13:39 PM.

    Even if he stands still for the rest of the call (when he could be going east to get that address he's so bent on obtaining), he's still got another 1:51 during which it seems he only managed to go east to Retreat View and back to the "T".

    Does it take almost 2 minutes to walk from the average townhouse backyard to the front and back again?

    And if he's going to go back to the Honda on Twin Trees, why does he need to give them an address from Retreat View?

    He could have just driven around there, checking for Martin at the south end of Twin Trees near the back entrance and driven north back up the east leg of Retreat View to where he wanted to get an address and then he would have been parked at the address he was going to give them when they called back.

    He just seemed so determined to be out on foot for some reason.

    Does ZIM NOT HAVE ARMS AND HANDS?.... (3.67 / 3) (#279)
    by fredquick21 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:24:54 PM EST
     i ask because after reading some ( not all) of his statements and hundreds of post on this site and some tv lawyers and no one asks this question. If you are "(feeling like your) being hit by bricks(tm's multiple punches) and have your head repeatedly slammed into the concrete and someone during this also "puts one hand over your mouth and one over your nose to smother you"... Am i to believe that Zim threw "NO PUNCHES" even thought his hands are free (correct me if i missed or misread something). Zim didn't use his hand to stop from being smother or stop his head which "felt like it was going to explode" from being slammed into the concrete. Did Zim just take this "MMA " style beating with his hands by his side only and make no attempt to hold one of TM's arms to lessen the blows or at least block them. During this assault he only "SLIDE" to get his head off the concrete then trapped TM's arm as he felt him ( or perceived ) TM was going for his gun which Zim "Forgot he had" (per his statement) until this moment even while he somehow didn't feel it against his back or side as he move from concrete to grass... *If i missed or misread something i  apologise if not with this type of beating is it reasonable to believe Zim just laid there and took it with "0" offensive attack during this assault...

    Agree, Uma (3.50 / 2) (#237)
    by marvc on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 12:14:55 AM EST
    My AA and Hispanic students in the South Bronx would say "You got me" for a variety of situations, not necessarily meaning something akin to "You shot me." On the other hand, I have never heard this generation of young HS Black males say "Homie" when referring to white people. "Cracker?" Yes. Homie? No.  Only someone older who had been around in the 80s when that famous phrase "Homie don't play that" was current.

    And I am wondering about an earlier remark by cylinder regarding lung tissue on blood trails. TM was shot with the pistol purportedly pressed against his chest/clothing or very nearly so. I was not aware that one could hunt deer so carefully such that one could be able to place the rifle barrel against the chest of the deer. As one who has hunted deer for years and who has a few times had to track a wounded animal, following a blood trail can be very arduous and difficult. I agree that it might be possible to find some internal body tissue on the blood trail at or extremely near the site where the animal as shot; I've never seen one where the animal continued to leave tissue, lung or otherwise, behind on the blood trail as it tried to run away from the point of initial bullet contact.  

    Just wondering how all this was in any way related to how TM was shot. Is this meant to infer that TM continued to struggle for some unspecified period of time just after the bullet entered his body, or is this some reference to the idea that there should have been lung tissue on the ground near his body? As I remember reading the medical examiner's report of TM's injuries, the bullet did not exit his back, so just how would lung tissue figure into this exactly? Maybe I misunderstood cylinder's comment...???

    For example, he says in the statement: (3.50 / 2) (#242)
    by lore hahn on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:04:28 AM EST
    For example, he says in the statement: "I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign.

    Yes, for example. He looks for an address on Retreat View Circle, (the only street in the retreat he claims to know by name, after living in RTL for three years, which has only three streets? He manages the Neighborhood Watch and recruits block captains, but does not collect their addresses or looks on the map to see were they all live? He only knows his own street the outer circle? Is unable to learn the other two roads in RTL?)

    And this address he needs to give to the arriving officers, while his car is parked on a completely different street, and he doesn't know where the guy has gone? Since he looks both for an address somewhere else and intends to return to his car to await the officers?

    Absolutely logical.

    He was in fact slightly exasperated with the dispatcher that he wanted a precise address, keeping him on the line for so long. While he clearly told him that the "suspect" just headed towards the back entrance, remember? The back entrance mysteriously disappeared from his narrative. Now all he needs is an arbitrary number on RVC. Since it is so absolutely difficult to simply say, they come straight in through the front entrance and turn left after the clubhouse. My car is parked on the other side facing them, it's a white Toyota pickup truck. It shortly before the road take the turn to the right heading towards the back entrance.

    But he clearly remembers the incident on 02/02/12 when he in fact called back and gave another address, but in that case it was Frank Taaffe's house. On 26/02/12 that is exactly were his narrative starts.

    Problem is, in that case the black guy with the "bomber hat, seems to have moved on to Frank Taaffe's house or maybe used the cut through nearby, because Taaffe always keeps his house unlocked? Now he simply walks over to Retreat View Circle gets an arbitrary address in front of his nose and then intends to return to his car on Twin Trees to await the officers?

    Yes, that is absolutely logical, why should we doubt that?

    Fighting on the ground (3.50 / 2) (#280)
    by Lina Inverse on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:12:16 PM EST
    fredquick21: Most people don't train to fight on the ground, that's one of the big advantages of grappling martial arts like judo, since a very large fraction of physical fights end up with someone on the ground.

    We don't know enough to judge Zimmerman's actions between the time he was down with Martin on top of him to when he shot.  If he has no training in martial arts, he might not have been very effective.  Surprise was against him, and it takes many people a lot of time to cycle to effective "fight or flight"; Nathan Bedford Forrest's principle of "keeping up the skeer" certainly applies here.  I get the impression/assume he was somewhat stunned by the initial blow to his head and probably more by the subsequent ones, you yourself quote him on that, a head that "feels like it's going to explode" will not likely be thinking the best.

    His position put him at a potentially fatal disadvantage ... in fact, you should try with a friend duplicating the positions to see how much and how well he could each reach Martin.  By his own account he appears to have focused on getting out from under Martin, which sounds like a very good idea, but would require use of at least one of his arms.  Perhaps he tried to use the other to block Martin as best he could.

    We just don't know, and I suspect few if any of us have been in a similar enough situation to be able to render an informed decision.

    "You got me." Really? (3.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Mitch Guthman on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    Do black teenagers really talk like that?  Does anybody?  Maybe the full quote was something like "yeah, you got me, you dirty rat!" or maybe "you got me! Mother of god, is this is the end of Trayvon?"   It's kind of hard to see Trayvon Martin as a character from Little Caesar who accidentally wandered into a Chuck Norris move.  I have the feeling that Zimmerman must have watched a lot of Chuck Norris movies.  If so, you kind of have to wonder if maybe that colored his perceptions a little bit.

    On a more serious note,  I skimmed through a lot of this but I don't see it as being worth the effort that people here are putting in until the physical evidence, lab reports and autopsy are all available so that it is possible to determine whether Zimmerman's statements are consistent with the physical evidence.  I think that's when things will get interesting and we will see whether there's any basis for the 2nd degree murder charge.

    But I did think the parts where he related what Trayvon Martin is supposed to have said during the encounter would have been very entertaining except for the fact that a teenaged boy was killed.

    "You got me" is pretty close to (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    "you shot me."

    Not sure how clearly I'd be speaking if I had a 9mm bullet in my lung. Also not sure how accurately I'd be hearing/remembering if I had just put a bullet in someone else's lung...

    Parent

    and also (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by pyrrho on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    there is the likelyhood of it being a voice in George's head.  I think we should consult his psychiatrist and I suspect the prosecution will agree more than the defense.

    Parent
    "You shot me. You killed me." (none / 0) (#133)
    by friendofinnocence on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    You got me ! (none / 0) (#147)
    by spectator on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:26:06 PM EST
    IMO most folks have probably never really pondered why "you got me" is part of the old movie culture, i can tell you first hand is because it actually happens.
     I said the exact same thing when i got shot in the abdomen when 11yrs old, many years later a witness to a shooting of a mutual friend, told me he said the same thing also, so i know why it was such a classic term, i think the reason it happens so often is... it's the first thing you want the person to know when you've been hit and you want them to stop, oddly it's just instinct and it  really doe's happen.

    Parent
    along with "Yo you got a problem" (none / 0) (#150)
    by lily on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:30:52 PM EST
    and "now you do MF"

    totally credible

    Parent

    If you are reciting facts (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    that are disputed play provide your source. Comments about "jumping out of the bushes" without a source are being deleted. From what I've heard and read so far, he said he "emerged from the darkness" -- it was dark and he couldn't see where he came from. It was while he was walking back to his car.

    I haven't finished listening, so if he said that, tell us which statement. And links must be in html format or they skew the site. If you can't link, tell us the date or description of which statement you are taking your "fact" from.

    Reference to bushes is in the audio files (none / 0) (#16)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    The file "audio_statement_0226_2.mp3" has police reference to jumping out from bushes, and Zimmerman has no objection to "from the bushes" during a back and forth of a few questions, each question referring to Martin emerging from the bushes.  I know I heard a snippet on a CNN webpage with Zimmerman stating Martin emerging from the bushes.

    Parent
    He did in fact say (none / 0) (#22)
    by JoeMenardo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    "TM jumped out from the bushes." In his initial interview with Inestigator Singleton on Feb. 25, he does in fact say "TM jumped out from the bushes and says WTF is your problem Homie".  


    Parent
    thanks, that was what I was asking for (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    what?!? is !?!? this?!?! (1.00 / 2) (#224)
    by pyrrho on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:02:54 PM EST
    what is all this apologia for a out of control dude killing and innocent kid?!?  Gangsters don't snowboard wt heck are you thinking!  I thought Armando blogged here?!?!

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by bmaz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:16:54 PM EST
    A lot of us here have significant experience in criminal defense or other forms of law, a lot of people do not but are very good at detail analysis.  There are a wide range of opinions expressed here both on specific issues and as to the validity of the case as a whole.

    I will say this much, it is a tragedy that Trayvon Martin is dead, but this is one of the best self defense justification cases I have ever seen in a case charged this high. Also, that goes part and parcel with the fact that there does not appear to be credible evidence to support key elements of the charge of second degree murder.  This case is in a far, far different posture legally than you seem to grasp.

    Parent

    Forgot to mention (1.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:05:02 PM EST
    Re GZ's broken nose:

    Is it possible his nose was broken, say, inadvertently by TM's elbow as he tried to get GZ's arm/hands off him? and not by a direct punch?

    Still working my way through them... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    ...but I've watched the re-enactment, read the statement, watched the stress test video and am going through the interviews.

    There are some inconsistencies, but nothing significant that I can tell.  Mainly there's a poor recollection of his NEN call (where the NEN basicly said "Let me know if he does anything else", GZ says the NEN was asking for more details where TM was going than the dispatcher actually was, stuff like that).

    When it comes to the actual confrontation and fight, I think is telling very closely matches what witnesses heard and saw.  George saw W6 come out of the house and say he was going to call 911 for instance, and IIRC their testimonies matched up before George would have had a chance to know what W6 would have told police.

    But the stuff he said that seemed inconsistent didn't strike me at all as stuff that anyone would embellish thinking it would help him.

    There were a couple things that struck me as... (none / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:54:35 AM EST
    ... inconsistent between the statement and the 911 call. I don't recall GZ attempting to get out of the truck to look at a street sign as he was talking to the dispatcher, or that TM confronted GZ the first time circling the truck while GZ was in the truck.
    Also, if GZ was so powerless to escape TM's beatdown, how did he get access to unholster his gun?

    Admittedly, I don't have the facts memorized and can't do more today than pop into this thread every so often. Look forward to Jeralyn's and others' breakdown.

    Parent

    Dispatcher asked for house address (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
    Zimmerman: Alright
    Dispatcher: Where you going to meet with them at?1
    Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh,
    straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck
    ... [unintelligible]
    Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
    Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.
    Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?
    Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]
    Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?

    I don't see any meaningful consistencies so far.

    Parent

    Right, and considering (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    the events that happened, I think GZ's memory might have just merged a couple of the questions in his mind as he was trying to recall the NEN conversation.

    GZ so far holds up well in the Serino interview too.  Early on Serino bluffed about the possibility that Trayvon's phone had video of the encounter, and GZ said something to the effect that he prays someone does have video.

    Serino also seemed to try and throw misleading questions out there to catch GZ, and GZ corrected him.

    Oh, and a question...at one point Serino says there's a witness that GZ tried to detain Trayvon.  I've not heard of any such witness statement, but the "GZ is guilty" crowd seems to take that statement that there is another witness out there that saw that.

    My impression is that Serino tried to use that to see if he could trap GZ into admitting that he tried to detain Trayvon; would that be probable?

    Parent

    If there is such a witness as Sernio describes (none / 0) (#13)
    by leftwig on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    ITs not known to anyone else at this time.  I think like the video comment, it was a bluff, trying to get him to say something like, "well, I did put my hand up to stop him, but I didn't detain him".  Basically that comment was just a fishing expedition and to get him thinking about that specific moment.  

    I agree with you, there are a few inconsistencies, but they are minor and you'd expect a few given what went down and how many different statements he made.  Unless a crucial part of his statements can be contradicted by evidence, these statements on the whole seem to help his cause.

    One thing that I did think was interesting is that he did interpret the dispatchers words of not "needing" to follow Martin as "don't follow him".  Not sure it really matters all that much since it wasn't a legal directive either way, but interesting given the public debates around those words.

    Parent

    Yep, he did interpret the statement a "don't (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    follow", and is insistent that he didn't.  He pointed out how he was trying to get an address, and indicated how the sidewalk at the T was in the back of the houses so he couldn't see an address so he went straight instead of south on the T, and on his way back is when he was approached.

    It's amusing to me how some take these statements as proof he's lying...the more I listen, the more convinced I am that George acted in self defense.

    (Though of course if anyone does catch any actual inconsistencies I missed I'm sure they'll get pointed out.) =)

    Parent

    Just looked at 911 transcript.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    ... I was wrong about GZ not mentioning TM walking by car. GZ did tell dispatcher that.

    The whole looking for a street sign thing to me still smells fishy. After your excerpt, the dispatcher just told GZ to wait by mailboxes and GZ overruled that plan and asked cops to call him when the cops got there and he'd update his location.

    Parent

    In the re-enactment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    GZ indicates that he was already by the T at that point of the conversation where the dispatcher asked if he wanted to meet police by the mailboxes.  

    In which case it would be quite logical for GZ to suggest meeting the Police closer to where he presently was.

    Parent

    TM walking by car. (none / 0) (#55)
    by lore hahn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    ... now he is coming towards me, isn't exactly now he circles my car.

    smells fishy: I agree, in this context I found it highly interesting that Frank Taafee's house at RVC 1460 surfaced, were he indeed called back to call police. He surely grounds himself in factual history, that he knows has left traces.

    Parent

    In the 2/29 Serino interview (none / 0) (#225)
    by amateur on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:04:24 PM EST
    he asks about how close TM got to his truck and he says "about a car length".  That's really not that close and sounds more like the "checking me out" he describes in the call -- getting close enough to get a look at the guy who's following him, not circling him in a threatening manner.

    Parent
    Heads I win, tails you lose (none / 0) (#4)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    Some will argue that if his story is consistent or "too good" (presents too strong a case to conclude the shooting was justified self defense), that's a sign of guilt because he's fabricated a story and is able to stick to it.

    Parent
    "Some".. will argue (none / 0) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    Heh

    Parent
    what? (none / 0) (#210)
    by pyrrho on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    how can you say that when he says the confrontation and fall down and killing happened 30-40FT from the dead body?!

    Parent
    Video of the re-enactment works for me (none / 0) (#2)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    I obtained the file from GZLegalCase.com.  It's a 645 Mb .vob file.  The 110 Mb .asf file showing video of the voice stress test likewise works fine.

    do you see (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    anything but a white car? Do you see Zimmerman or the places he is pointing out? I don't.

    Parent
    The site took the video down (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:29:12 AM EST
    but I grabbed it beforehand, and it is the actual walkthrough and re-enactment.  They stop at the clubhouse, GZ points out the houses that he first saw Trayvon passing between before he called NEN, etc.

    Parent
    GZ points out the houses (none / 0) (#57)
    by lore hahn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    Frank Taaffe's house RVC 1460, see his 911 call history 02/02/12.

    Parent
    Plenty more than a car (none / 0) (#11)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:35:04 AM EST
    The video opens with Zimmerman getting into a white police car, and continues to a part where you can hear two officers talking as they follow that white police car.  The video camera is in the second car.  Then the video switches to the car that Zimmerman is in.  It pulls into the clubhouse lot, backs out of the clubhouse lot, goes to a streetside parking place where Zimmerman says he got out of his car.  Probably half of the video is Zimmerman walking down the path, describing the correlation between where he is and what he's telling dispatch, all the way through contact, struggle, shooting, getting on top of Martin, to the end of the incident, being cuffed by SPD.

    Parent
    Haven't gotten a chance to watch the video (none / 0) (#15)
    by leftwig on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:45:25 AM EST
    IS Zimmermans re-enactment that he pretty much stayed to the walkway that forms the top of the 'T'?

    Parent
    Zimmerman stays pretty much to the walkway (none / 0) (#18)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    Yes.

    Parent
    Here's the (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    video reenactment on You Tube.

    Parent
    Unfortunately they've taken it down. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    I got most of the way through it before they did. Paused to do something else and when I went back it was gone.  How Hearst can have a copyright on the police video is beyond me, but whatever.

    Parent
    NBC.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    ...probably wants to 'enhance' it....

    Parent
    This site has a copy of it (none / 0) (#67)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    Thanks, I filled out a (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    media request to O'Mara's office and they sent it to me. Took 45 minutes to download -- using broadband. But now I can refer back to it without having to rely on links from You Tube that get taken down or MSM sites that may only show parts of it. But the link you provide is a good one.  

    Parent
    Damn... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    ...that seems pretty convincing.  I am not fan of GZ actions, but that seems like a pretty hard story to make-up and pretty convincing.  If the date line on the calls matches, you gotta think the GZ is telling the truth.

    A couple of notes:

    • According to him, there is an eye witness no more than 10 feet away who saw them struggling before the gun was pulled.  They were close and the witness has to see exactly what was happening.

    • His nose and eye are damaged.  Who knows what is underneath the bandages.  But it's clear he was hit fairly hard in the face at least once.

    • The proximity of the first sight was like 15 feet, a car length, very close for someone being in a car.  I'm surprised GZ couldn't tell TM age.

    • The buildings while maybe they call them houses, the entire area is more closely like apartments.  Everything is tight with no outlets beyond the end of the string of buildings.

    • I can't get over the proximity of everything, this wasn't across the way, it was right there.  I find it remarkable that several people didn't see exactly what happened.

    What I can't get past, is why did he leave his truck.  He stated the guy had something in the band of his pants inferring a gun, then he circled GZ vehicle, then GZ followed him into a dark area.  Not important to the case, but the stupidity to follow someone he though was armed into a dark area is almost too dumb to believe.

    Parent
    And if I'm not mistaken, the cop (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    raises the disconnect between George's fear as a result of the recent problems in the neighborhood, together with what he was reporting about the "suspicious" person, and his then getting out of his truck to follow Martin.  He's stopping and starting the non-emergency call audio, trying to pinpoint where George was at points in the call, and right after George talls the dispatcher about Trayvon circling the car and looking at him, and then running, the cop says to George something like, "so is this when you got out of your car?"  and when George says "yes," the cop says, "that's not fear."

    He kind of has a point, in my mind.

    Also, they go over the whole business about following Trayvon.  After saying he was following him, he then says he stopped.  The cop says something like "so what are you doing?"  And George says, "looking for a street sign," so he can tell the cops which way the suspect went - at which point the cop kind of laughs and says, "that's following."

    And the female cop raised a question I've had: why do you tell the dispatcher to have the cops call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is, when he's so close to being back at his truck?  Not sure George's answer made a whole lot of sense there.

    I have to listen to it again - there was, at least for me, quite a variance in the sound levels, with the female cop and George often being hard to hear, especially when they are playing the non-emergency call audio and talking at the same time.

    I think there are questions, plenty of them, raised in that interview.

    Parent

    Anne - Please direct me to your source (none / 0) (#62)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    I don't know of any evidence of George having fear as a result of the recent problems in the neighborhood.  Or any fear, for that matter, until after he gets out of his truck, and even then, not until he meets up with Martin.

    Please point to the evidence that has George saying he has fear as a result of the recent problems in the neighborhood; and if you mean something slightly different, that Zimmerman was in fear on seeing Martin, or before getting out of his truck, etc.

    Assuming you can do that, and I have every confidence you can or you wouldn't have made the assertion, I'm not clear on how an inconsistency on the point of having fear makes Zimmerman culpable.

    Parent

    And not only that - (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    waiting until the kid is running away before getting out of the truck is not proof of a lack of fear.

    Parent
    the point the fear comes into play (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    is after he is attacked by Trayvon. He has to be in fear when he responds using deadly force.

    His fear was eminently reasonable at the point in time it matters: after being attacked and unable to get up.

    Don't assume Serino's questions are legally relevant. They are not. Why he thought Trayvon was suspicious, whether and if he followed Trayvon, why it took him whatever time it took to get back to his car, why he equated Trayvon with criminals make no legal difference. He had every legal right to get out of his car.

    What I glean from all of it: Trayvon physically attacked Zimmerman without legal provocation. He had no legal right to do so.

    Trayvon initiated both the verbal and physical encounter between them.

    There is not one iota of evidence that would legally justify Trayvon's physical attack on Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with his version of the attack. Zimmerman cried out for help. The witnesses' statements the night of the event support Zimmerman's version of events.  

    Parent

    in regard to trayvon starting physical (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    did any of the witnesses see them standing up fighting or see TM throw the first punch?  I think your statement is off considering the only witness to the verbal encounter (albeit brief) is completely different than GZ's verbal account.  

    "get off, get off"  is the last thing she heard TM say.  What does "get off" mean? Are you speculating that she heard GZ say "get off" and thought it was TM?  

    She says he started with "why are you following me", yet i see no mention of that from GZ most likely because the dispatcher just told him he should not be doing that.  

    Parent

    Or possibly because (3.25 / 4) (#171)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:34:32 PM EST
    Dee Dee's memories are planted and biased. She also stated that she could discern the sound of someone sliding through the grass on her phone. Or perhaps it was that she said she could discern the sound of the phone sliding through the grass. Its difficult to follow her statements.

    In either case she should consider a career as the worlds premier SONAR analyst

    Did Trayvon's clothing have grass stains?

    IMHO under Cross examination Dee Dee would be exposed and Crump could be in some jeopardy.


    Parent

    Dee Dee (none / 0) (#217)
    by pyrrho on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:53:27 PM EST
    if DeeDee is making up her testimony as a damning lie she could have done a lot better than quote GZ as saying "what are you doing around here" if you get my drift.

    she's solid.

    Parent

    I'll disagree with you there on TM's fear... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    I would certainly be afraid if someone seemed to be following me in their truck, and then exiting the truck and following me on foot. Then there's the question of who started the physical confrontation.

    The problem for the state to me is whether TM not only turned the tables on GZ but then took it up a notch once TM got the upper hand in the fight, which it looked like TM did.

    Also, once they started fighting, would TM be justified in taking it up a notch if he saw that the person following him by truck and then by foot also was carrying a gun. That might add a sense of urgency to TMs struggles once they were wrestling on the ground. GZ testifying that TM saw GZs gun and went for it may be in the state's favor, because if TM was administering the whooping and head bashing without knowing GZ was armed, then TM would be much less justified in the level of force he was meting out. For all we know, TM might have been trying to disarm GZ, and the point about whether GZ was lying about not pursuing TM in the first place may come into play when GZ asks us to believe that TM was verbalizing threats of killing GZ.

    It would be nice to know when TM first saw the gun, but that won't happen without a trained medium and a ouija board. Advantage GZ.

    I will credit TalkLeft for making me believe that GZ is probably not guilty of any crime from a legal standpoint, and certainly not guilty of 2nd degree murder, but I can't help ultimately blaming GZ for playing cop and setting into motion a chain of events that left an unarmed teenager dead, and blaming FL for enacting concealed carry laws that allow confrontations like this to happen.

    Parent

    taking it up a notch, this is generic US law (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Lina Inverse on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:55:26 PM EST
    The problem for the state to me is whether TM not only turned the tables on GZ but then took it up a notch once TM got the upper hand in the fight, which it looked like TM did.

    Don't know about the case law, but the statutory Florida law allows someone who initiated physical violence but not "deadly force" to claim self-defense if the other party escalates the combat to (potentially) lethal levels.  Assuming you believe Martin was on top of Zimmerman and bashing his head into the sidewalk concrete that standard is met (once you're unconscious you can assume it's Game Over).

    Also, once they started fighting, would TM be justified in taking it up a notch if he saw that the person following him by truck and then by foot also was carrying a gun.

    It depends.  Based on my above reading of the Florida law and general study of US self-defense law (and IANAL), in a scenario where either had initiated physical combat not rising to the level of "deadly force", if Zimmerman escalated by e.g. deliberately revealing his gun then I think Martin could "take it up a notch" to using lethal force on Zimmerman.

    In Zimmerman's account, without provocation Martin took it up two notches, first the debatable slamming his head into the concrete and then to going for his gun while saying "You're going to die tonight, [expletive deleted]."  At that latter point, assuming you believe Zimmerman and that he did not first escalate it to deadly force, you cannot argue against his claim of legitimate self-defense.

    (I say "without provocation" distinguishing the point after the initial physical combat, whoever initiated it.)

    If you believe Zimmerman's account, the relevant Florida concealed carry laws are entirely within US norms.  Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat have no relevance when your back is already "to the wall" as English common law put it.  I'm not aware of any state who's law would make a difference to Zimmerman, with the exception of Ohio which uniquely requires the defendant prove self-defense.

    Now, as I understand U.K. law, if they were there Zimmerman would be in serious legal trouble, since he used greater force than Martin in the fight; this common law principle was made in the 1950s.

    Parent

    That is the Defense Theory (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    What I glean from all of it: Trayvon physically attacked Zimmerman without legal provocation. He had no legal right to do so.

    Trayvon initiated both the verbal and physical encounter between them.

    Jeralyn, are you making this as a statement of proven fact or as a statement of what cannot be refuted beyond a reasonable doubt?  I have taken the position that other scenarios are consistent with the evidence.  For example, Zimmerman started to pull his gun on Martin and the resulting events were a result of Martin defensively tackling him.  However, since I can't refute the defense theory, Zimmerman is not guilty.

    Parent

    bias of the Left against Zimmerman (3.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Steve27 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    "... For example, Zimmerman started to pull his gun on Martin and the resulting events were a result of Martin defensively tackling him.  ..."

    I see this as evidence of the bias of the left against Zimmerman. Why would Zimmerman pull his gun and confront Martin knowing that the police would be arriving at any moment?

    The Sanford police did an excellent job investigating the incident. The local prosecutor made an informed and sound decision not to prosecute. Then the national politicians, racial group leaders and media companies got involved and demanded Zimmerman be charged with a crime.

    Justice, if it ever was, is no longer blind.


    Parent

    To me the most reasonable thing for GZ to have don (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:00:10 PM EST
    would have been to show his gun and say the police were on the way. What would a real security guard have done? just that.

    Parent
    Doesn't sound like GZ was (none / 0) (#227)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:05:52 PM EST
    afforded the opportunity to do or say much of anything

    Parent
    becaue of his fantasy life (none / 0) (#216)
    by pyrrho on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    to make sure "one didn't get away" to make sure a citizen's arrest happened.  How can you ignore that GZ claims never to have gone south of the T to where the body was.  How is that possible.  Why would you ignore that?

    Parent
    from all of it," iow, her opinion.

    Parent
    I clearly said it's (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:25:52 PM EST
    what I gleaned from the information, which means "my take" on it, not indisputible fact.

    Parent
    cboldt, now that I have gone back (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    and listened again to the one audio recording I listened to, you're right - I don't hear George mentioning his fear there; it is the cop who, starting at about 6:52 says, "so you basically jumped out of the car to see where he was going; that's not fear.  That's one of the problems I have," and then some unintelligible something, followed by what I think is a clarification that it's one of the problems, not just that the cop has a problem with it.

    George called the non-emergency number because he was making connections between the recent break-ins and this suspicious person he didn't recognize.  While not expressly saying he was afraid, it's not an unreasonable conclusion to reach - however - what I think the cop was doing was showing that George's actions and behavior while he was on the phone with the dispatcher were not indicative of George having fear for his own safety.

    In any event, my apologies for getting a bit tangled up in the call.  I haven't listened to all of the recordings - I'm guessing you have?

    Parent

    I haven't listened to all of the recordings (none / 0) (#88)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    I took you at your word, and was looking for the place where that evidence appeared.  I will often say "I'm not aware of," and usually it means just that.  For example, this morning on the "out of the bushes" claim, I wasn't aware of that statement, but it sure was made.

    I'm still unclear on the relevance of "fear or not" to the case.  To be clear, I understand the prosecution's theory, I think, that Martin was in fear, and was running to elude and escape.  DeeDee provides evidence for this.  But I'm unclear on how Zimmerman having any fear plays into either SPD's theory, or the prosecution's theory.

    My understanding of the murder 2 crime that the prosecution asserts it can prove, is that what Zimmerman has for an emotional state is some sort of hot blooded anger or malice, not fear.

    Anyway, I still haven't listened to all of the recordings, and even if I had, my memory is worse than Zimmerman's.

    Parent

    It depends on what he expected to see (none / 0) (#56)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    I agree that it's risky to attempt to maintain visual contact with an unknown person.  Turns out in this case, in hindsight, to have monumental consequences.

    I notice in the "tough" interview, Zimmerman is pretty adamant about not following, even though, in some sense of the word, as the interrogator correctly notes, he gets out of the truck and takes the same path, so he is following.  I've stated my impression, and obviously Zimmerman didn't articulate it this way, as Zimmerman was following, but he expected "the guy" to be way ahead of him, not close.

    Zimmerman probably thought "the guy" was trying to get away.  He probably didn't think "the guy" wanted an in-your-face discussion.  If he had that assumption (again, in hindsight, found out to be false), Zimmerman doesn't think the act of following creates a risk of entering into a confrontation.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    ...but he circled his truck and GZ said he had something in his waistband.  I would have been sh1tty bricks, and GZ follows him.

    I'm not saying it has anything to do with the case, but either he's got balls of steel or he's really dumb.  

    That is not how a rational person reacts to suspicious person, with something in his waistband, circling their vehicle, IMO.

    Parent

    I'm still unclear on the waistband (none / 0) (#93)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    My first impression of the waist band was Martin making some sort of visual threat, I articulated it as 'fondling a firearm" sort of motion.  But others pointed out to me that all Zimmerman said was that the guy had his hands in his waistband - which is like me having my hands in my pockets, of thumb looped over a belt, etc.  In other words, just an observation of the way somebody is carrying themself, no threat, innocuous conduct, but conduct that might distinguish a person.

    The circling the vehicle thing has bothered me from the first time I heard it, probably 6 weeks ago.  I still can't make sense of it, but I haven't tried to in light of this release.  One small thing that bugged me, Martin supposedly confronting Zimmerman twice, once by the truck, and once by the T, nobody is suggesting that theory.  What happened at the truck, at most, was this circling thing, no words being exchanged.  Maybe I should read Zimmerman again, he says he doesn't hear any words, maybe he thinks Martin is saying something - but still, there were not two mutual confrontations.

    I agree with Jeralyn, none of this matters under the law.  The legal question is first, if Zimmerman was reasonably in fear, and second (and secondary) whether or not Zimmerman initiated the use of physical force.

    But, I am interested to understand how various posters view the law.  That's why I ask for an explanation of how Zimmerman's fear plays into the case.

    Parent

    GZ probably following TM prior to police call (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve27 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    "... The circling the vehicle thing has bothered me from the first time I heard it, probably 6 weeks ago.  I still can't make sense of it, but I haven't tried to in light of this release. ..."

    It does not sound like GZ was outside of his car prior to and during the police call. But he likely had been watching for a while. The accumulated observations giving him reason to call the police. But where were TM and GZ during the pre call observation time? If GZ was in the car all the time he could not see TM doing much between and behind the buildings. My guess is he is driving from spot to spot keeping an eye on TM. Which angers TM. But TM is also thinking this is a guy who is watching me from his car but is afraid to leave it. So I can be more aggresive with him when I catch him outside of the car.
     

    Parent

    I Mentioned... (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    ...several times that it doesn't play into he case, just that it's weird behavior.  And I am not suggesting this, but fear seems to be part of the case, but some how that fear doesn't apply until TM is on GZ.

    I just re-read the call to the cops and GZ says at first:

    Yeah, now he's coming toward me. He's got his hands in his waist band.

    Then a bit later he says:

    He's got something on his shirt...(age talk with dispatcher)...
    Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out.

    He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.


    Then the dispatcher with this really odd statement:
    We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

    What does that mean, on the wire ?

    Then GZ:  

    OK. These assh0les. They always get away.

    Then some talk of directions and then GZ follows him.  Just seems like anyone in that position would be very scared, but GZ is remarkably calm, even when what I assume was some sort of stare down that GZ says is TM is checking him out.

    This, to me, is thug behavior.  No fear or backing down when a very dangerous situation is happening aided with a determination to make sure he doesn't get away.

    But again, I don't this is relevant to the events that followed, or rather they aren't relevant to the court case.

    Parent

    Heroism (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:37:51 PM EST
    is thug behavior

    ????

    Parent

    GZ is naive and he has a gun (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve27 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    "... Then some talk of directions and then GZ follows him.  Just seems like anyone in that position would be very scared, but GZ is remarkably calm, even when what I assume was some sort of stare down that GZ says is TM is checking him out. ..."

    a. ) TM does not look overly big to him.  b. ) GZ has not been in a situation like this before.  c.) anyone who puts on a firearm when they go to the store is a little off in terms of being aware of the dangers they face.  d.) GZ knows the police will be arriving at any moment.

    It comes down to gun laws. Florida allows people to carry a concealed weapon. It is ok for the legal system to scrutinize those who are armed when they defend themselves. But if the gun owner does not start the fight. And is not able to get away from the assailant. And the gunshot is very close range. Then there is no justification for an indictment.


    Parent

    Is there a reason why he should have assumed... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by redwolf on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:35:15 PM EST
    Martin was dangerous?  I can't think of any.

    Parent
    Dispatcher didn't say that (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    First, apologies to MJW whose comment pointing out the dispatcher didn't say anything about a wire got deleted. I hit the wrong button (glad it was only a one sentence comment.)

    Please read the transcript. I provided the link.

    Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

    Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.



    Parent
    aournd the truck (none / 0) (#213)
    by pyrrho on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:49:05 PM EST
    George clearly mean Trayvon came near the truck, that sense of "around" but also conveys it is "around" as in circling due to his hyper-suspicious (born cop, not) personality type.

    Parent
    Are you a psychic (3.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:00:18 PM EST
    psychiatrist with the ability to diagnose this mysterious new 'hyper-suspicious circling" syndrome you invented?

    Parent
    I wonder how he interpeted this.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:48:59 PM EST

    Let me know if he does anything, OK?

    Zimmerman:

    OK.

    911 dispatcher:

    We've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

    Zimmerman:

    OK.



    Parent
    Your sequence is off (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    He said TM circled him when he was parked in the second spot, in front of the white truck sitting in front of 1211 Twin Trees Lane. He says he saw TM turn onto the shared path between the houses  and then he came back up to the T, and went onto the grassy area, and then circled his truck.

    While he was parked at the clubhouse, he only says Trayvon was walking towards him, not that he circled his truck.

    Parent

    It's back up and working. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    Places shooting nearer T than TM's body ended up. Self-defense claim is based on TM going for his gun, not fear of death by head-banging. "You got me" verbiage is tenative, not a "Little Caesar" delivery. Some errors in recounting NEN call, but not at an unexpected level given that he hadn't heard it as many times as we have... i.e., zero times after experiencing it, I gather. Wonder how hard/expensive it would be to gen a reenactment in a gaming engine to check the timing against the call?

    Parent
    Actually.... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by bmaz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    I think the self defense claim involves both of those factors and either one alone would be sufficient as making Zimmerman's use of force "reasonable"

    Parent
    Bmaz is correct (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:46:30 PM EST
    He says just west of the "T", Trayvon appeared out of the darkness and confronted him. When he reached for his phone, Trayvon punched him.  As he struggled to get up, Trayvon started banging his head into the cement.  His body was on the grass, his head on the cement. Zimmerman cried  out for help.  Trayvon put his hand over his mouth. He thought he was going to lose consciousness. As he was trying to move his head onto the grass, his jacket lifted and his gun was exposed. Trayvon reached for his gun and told him to shut F* up. He was slamming his head into the cement.

    At that point, anyone in that situation would reasonably fear serious bodily or death.  He was also unable to extricate himself. He was justified in using deadly force under traditional self defense principles even without Stand Your Ground. But Stand Your Ground also applies. He was in a place he lawfully had a right to be - a public area in his community. He was attacked. He did nothing to provoke a physical assault. His fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death only had to be reasonable, not actual. He had no duty to retreat, but even if he did have such a duty, since he was unable to extricate himself by any lesser means, he was justified in using lethal force, whether in fear Trayvon would get his gun and shoot him, or to stop him from beating him into unconsciousness.


    Parent

    To Gandydancer's point... (none / 0) (#184)
    by lawstudent on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    I think the point Gandydancer makes is that based on GZ's reenactment, he appears to attribute his decision to shoot only when he realized TM saw the gun and reached for it.  That's not to say that he won't argue at trial that the physical force from TM led him to reasonably fear for his life or serious bodily harm, but I do think that GZ's story as told in the reenactment suggests, to a certain degree, that the shot was fired in response to a concern that TM reached for his weapon after spotting it.  

    In the end, it probably doesn't make his self defense claim any more or less credible, but it is interesting nonetheless as it begs the question of whether he would have responded by firing his weapon had it not been exposed to TM and/or TM had not reached for it.  

    Parent

    Zimmerman said he forgot he had a gat (none / 0) (#191)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:13:27 PM EST
    The fight went on for some time with somebody screaming for help.  If you believe that person was Zimmerman, he went quite awhile under some stress without choosing to use deadly force in response, including blows to the face that he said made it feel like his head was going to explode, and feeling he might lose consciousness.  When he perceives that Martin may be going to disarm him, in combination with the uttered death threat, he pretty quickly comes to a stark recollection and decision point.

    I think the totality of the experience has play, and we can't ever know if a smothering or other event might have resulted in a similar epiphany on Zimmerman's part - assuming for the sake of argument that his account is generally accurate on that final moment, Martin reaches for the gun, and at that point, I was in fear for my life.

    I haven't listened to the interrogations carefully to see if Zimmerman ever assigns that state of mind to a point earlier in the altercation.

    I'm still quite struck by the stark contrast between SPD's walk through and challenges to Zimmerman (throughout all of SPD's interrogation, they credit Zimmerman as the screamer), and the prosecution's case.  When will O'Mara get the statement of particulars?  What is the state's theory of the unfolding of events?  How do they get there (meaning what evidence supports which detail parts).

    Parent

    Mother Jones has the video, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:08:31 PM EST
    It's from ABC News. You can clearly see the butterfly bandages on the back of Zimmerman's head.

    Parent
    In a different statement (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    GZ's mentioning of him circling the truck seemed to occur at a different point in time.

    To me it suggested GZ remembering him circling the truck but putting events out of order.

    Matching it up with the 911 call, I think Trayvon would have circled the truck then went down the cut-through, and GZ in the re-enactment forgot to tell the police that part, before telling how TM moved down the cut-through, then remembered it and tried to explain.

    I'm probably not making much sense putting it to words, but I can see it in my head hehe.

    GZ's Words on the Circling (none / 0) (#38)
    by miloh on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    GZ parks on Twin Trees near the cut off, then describes the following:

    • TM cut back through the houses (pointing towards the T)
    • TM came back and circled my car
    • TM had his hand in his waistband

    The timing doesn't match up to GZ's call to SPD that night.

    Building a map with timing based on this reenactment.  Hope to get it here later.

    Parent

    Sorry, I mis read your post. (none / 0) (#58)
    by JoeMenardo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    I think GZ lied about the circling part.  He says TM walked up through the cut through then came back and circled his car and walked back up through the cut through.  But, as Serino pointed out in a subsequent interview, it is impossible for that to have happened esp since he was on the phone with the dispatcher at that time.  

    Parent
    GZ Written Statement on Circling (none / 0) (#80)
    by miloh on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    In GZ's written statement to the police, he claims Trayvon circled his car during the early part of the SPD call.  

    This would be, according to GZ's reenactment, in the parking area next to the club house.

    So there is some confusion on GZ's part here.

    Parent

    no - forget (none / 0) (#121)
    by lore hahn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:40:09 PM EST
    not as I remember, he forgets the "are you following him" question, points backwards suggesting he moved forward towards RVC while finishing his call.

    Parent
    He claims he fell backward. (none / 0) (#24)
    by JoeMenardo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    in his initial interview on Feb. 26th with Investigator Singleton. "As soon as he punched me I fell backwards into the grass."

    Yet, in his walkthrough he claims they fought forward.

    That seems pretty minor to me... (none / 0) (#32)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    Seems like more than inconsistencies would be impossibilities like if TM had GZ pinned down, how did GZ have an arm free to unholster a weapon aim and shoot TM? Or, how is it you're looking for a streetsign in a grassy walk through area? I still don't see where 2nd degree murder comes in.
    Worst case from GZ's statement is that GZ overruled the dispatcher in order to follow TM with a loaded gun, and it was TM acting in self-defense. Without TM being able to give his side though, it will be really tough for the state to get there.

    Parent
    It's eminently possible (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    that despite Trayvon Martin having Zimmerman pinned down by being on top of him, that his right arm was free.  GZ and John both say Trayvon was continuing to hit him and bash his head.  That doesn't leave him both arms to pin down both of GZ's.

    Parent
    I think in terms (none / 0) (#33)
    by JoeMenardo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:25:49 PM EST
    of where TM's body was discovered.  If he went down immediately at the T, and it was a one sided fight.  How did they both end up down the walkway.

    Parent
    I keep wondering about that - the physical (none / 0) (#35)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    evidence (what we know to date) - where all of it is located, seems it might have been a moving struggle.  

    Parent
    movement (none / 0) (#154)
    by Philly on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    In the reenactment, GZ refers to "stumbling" after being struck, before he ended up on the ground with Trayvon on top, further down the T.  He indicates his body ended up on the grass with his head on the sidewalk.  He notes that he managed to maneuver so that his head was no longer on the sidewalk.  His account suggests that most of the movement happened before they were both on the ground.  GZ appears to underestimate how far they traveled during the struggle.

    In GZ's earlier written statement he asserts that at multiple points he "attempted to sit up."  Each time he would have done this, some movement would be expected.

    Parent

    Not much help, but ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    We have temporarily removed the video above from the server, to get access, please use the Media Request form. The Reenactment video is currently streaming on WFTV.com

    Quite a few media fiction outlets, also known as "news," are running parts of the video.

    here is the audio (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    Singleton suggests the bushes and he confirms, nearly 3/4 in.  here

    The bushes (none / 0) (#187)
    by friendofinnocence on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:05:16 PM EST
    It sounds like the investigator mentioned the bushes first, then Zimmerman later used his words to describe how Martin first appeared at confrontation time.  Is that correct?

    Parent
    links have to be in html format (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    or they skew the site.

    Commenter Joe Merardo thinks this audio "holds the most problems"

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    The police never buy the I was only trying to get an address story and do a pretty good job of outlining why.

    They don't buy the being smothered story either.

    Parent

    Isn't that the one detective just doing his job, (none / 0) (#37)
    by fairleft on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    trying to rattle Zimmerman and catch him contradicting himself? What the detective in fact buys or doesn't buy is irrelevant and unknown.

    Parent
    They did the good cop/bad cop thing (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    with the male saying "I'm trying to help you out but you need to straighten some things out" and the female saying things like "you tell us you got out of the car to get an address though we hear you open the car door less than a second after you say "on s...! he's running.' I think you're lying." GZ sounded the weakest in the interview at this juncture.(tangent: why would one ever talk to police when you are a suspect?)

    Is the male detective in this interview the one who requests an arrest?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#44)
    by JoeMenardo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    Serino is the one who wanted him charged with Manslaughter.

    Parent
    On what basis (none / 0) (#48)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    Agreed that Serino appears to position the case as a manslaughter case, but until we see the redacted portions of the March 13 Capias Request transmitted to Wolfinger, we may not know all of the reasons.

    None of the unredacted portions point to inconsistent testimony as the reason to charge Zimmerman with mansalughter.  They point to Zimmerman being guilty by dint of having the ability to break the chain of events by not getting out of his truck, or by identifying himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiating dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern.

    Parent

    Neither of those two things (none / 0) (#53)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    are a valid reason to invalidate George Zimmerman's defense of self defense.  

    Parent
    Mystery (none / 0) (#149)
    by friendofinnocence on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:27:29 PM EST
    To me, the Serino Capias is one of the biggest mysteries of this case.  

    I think there has to be something in play here of which we are unaware. That is because one would think an investigator would have to know he had not included a description of an actual crime in his request for an arrest.

    I suppose he could have just been tired and thought it would be rubber-stamped, no matter what he put in it.  However, it was also a sworn statement, so maybe he didn't put a description of a crime in there because he didn't have the evidence to back it up.

    I don't know.  That is why it is such a mystery to me.

    Parent

    Serino's throwaway line (none / 0) (#156)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:45:08 PM EST
    I don't assume that Serino thought a crime was committed, and it's not up to him to press charges.  The police power is limited to arrest and detention pending charging, and 776.032 is intended to cause the police to find probable cause the act was NOT self defense, before arrest and detention.

    If Serino had evidence that negatived Zimmerman's claim, then Zimmerman would have been arrested.  Not having that, he can send a sop to the Martins and anybody else who is looking, by putting in writing, to Wolfinger, what looks like a recommendation for charging manslaughter.  He puts in the "coulda broken the chain of events" language, which seems to sell quite well.

    However, "coulda broken the chain of events" has a bright line test of use of unlawful force, which is different from getting out of a truck, trash talking, giving the evil eye, and other assorted crap that many people do, that is commonly thought of as irritating.  Irritating it may be, but it is not illegal, and it is not provocation.

    Serino is just passing the buck.  He can tell Martins and anybody else who is looking, "don't blame me, I recommended a manslaughter charge.  Blame the prosecutor" (or the grand jury).  That does not mean he believes the "coulda prevented the outcome" test is a good legal standard.  I tend to think he knows better.

    And under a manslaughter charge, unlike under a murder charge, the state does have to negative the claim of self defense in its charging instruments.

    Parent

    I've (none / 0) (#194)
    by Kelwood on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:18:10 PM EST
    Thought that the capias was kind of a cya thing. Around the time he wrote that he was interviewed and he said that the best evidence they have of what happened was GZs account. I wondered if the capias was written to cover the police since it was likely that he knew the pros would pass on it anyway. The police were blamed more than the lawyers for the inaction.

    Parent
    I'd like to understand / hear more (none / 0) (#39)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    The police take a loud "bang" as a gunshot, and since the screaming doesn't seem to be interrupted by a smothering before the bang, they conclude there was no smothering.  And the smothering is a point in the testimony that Zimmerman seems to recall pretty clearly as he reenacts Martin's hand moving from smother his mouth toward the holstered pistol.

    I recall that in one of the 911 calls, there are two "bangs," one following maybe 10 seconds after the first.  Only one of those can be the gunshot, the other was something else, speculated to be a screen door.

    Corey's account is radically different though.  She has Martin the one screaming for help, not Zimmerman.  I can't reconcile the prosecution's version with eyewitnesses statements and injuries.

    Parent

    Remember Witness #6? (none / 0) (#151)
    by lore hahn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    In the longest interview, I think by Batchelor SPD too, he insists that what puzzled him most was that no one responded. Cut it up, I am calling police George clearly states that he asked him to help him, since he already called police and they were on the way.

    So there is a contradiction between his best witness and Georgie too.

    Parent

    he had called for police to come (none / 0) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    in his non-emergency call the dispatcher told him police were on their way. When W-6 yelled out and said he was calling the cops, GZ says he was being beaten and wanted W-6 to come and help him, but he didn't.

    It was W-13 who came out after the shot and asked if he should call 911 and GZ again said he had. He knew they were on the way (and had been on their way since he before he got off the phone with them.)

    W-6 supports GZ's defense, even in his later statement where he says TM was either hitting GZ or trying to restrain him. He's still sure GZ was on the bottom of the struggle. Even his later statements don't contradict GZ -- in those he says while he is no longer sure (after talking to his neighbors) which one yelled for help, he is still sure the man in the red jacket or sweater was on the bottom and the darker complected man in the gray sweatshirt was on top of him, and they were struggling.

    Parent

    I don't see that as a major issue. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    If TM was trying to cover his mouth, he would have been squirming, twisting his head, etc, trying to push his hands off, so I can see how that would lead to GZ's memory of TM trying to smother him while still screaming.

    And for the address thing, the female officer said something that wasn't on the tape.  She told GZ that the dispatcher instructed him to go back to the truck, and that didn't happen, and that could have screwed with his head as he was already trying to remember.

    But I've been in that situation before, where I thought I remembered one thing and it was pointed out that something was different, and feeling lost while I try and reconcile my memories.

    But yeah, I have to agree, that's the part that has the most problems.  However, nothing convinces me so far of there being anything more than a poor memory of details leading up to a traumatic moment.  I'm trying to keep an open mind though.

    Parent

    I think this audio (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeMenardo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    makes it hard to believe that TM circled his car and what led up to the incidenct.  Serino also grills him about the walk back to his car.  He initially said he was wlaking back when TM jumped out of  a bush.  Serino times it around 1 minute 20 seconds to walk 30 ft back to his car across the T.  So why didn't he complete the journey?

    Parent
    GZ might have spent a bit of time at the far (none / 0) (#50)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    end of the top of the T sidewalk, looking up and down the street there for Trayvon, hoping to be able to tell police where he was when they got there.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:20:21 PM EST
    The time discrepancy can be entirely explained by Zimmerman not being sure exactly what time he turned around.  In the re-enactment he described walking past the T, and in the questioning they tried to bludgeon him with turning around a lot sooner.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#59)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    he may have lingered a bit longer at the T.
    His account of the Call seem to have him placing the call earlier than is evident from the recording. He also seems very sensitive to the fact that the police might think he was chasing Martin. The inconsistancies could be categorized more as "spin" rather than lies, in my opinion.

    Parent
    Even if............. (none / 0) (#54)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    GZ's story has inconsistancies(I've seen a few)
    The events have him doing nothing possibly illegal until he pulls the gun. I realize the state says GZ was "stalking"  but with the evidence we've seen so far, can they get a conviction?  

    Parent
    That's kind of where I'm at... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    I think GZ was pursuing (and lying), wanting to be the hero, and was carrying a loaded gun to do it, and that TM felt scared or threatened. I think TM turned the tables on GZ, and GZ then shot him. I think the state will say well if GZ was lying about not following TM, GZ's whole story is bunk.

    Is that enough? It would be maybe if there was any witness that says GZ was displaying his weapon before the fight, but I haven't seen that.

    Parent

    too fearless on 911 call (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve27 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    On the 911 call there is no sense that GZ fears Martin. Martin circles the car and stares at Zimmerman. Then when he leaves GZ gets out of the car to check where he went. If I was prosecuting I would make a big deal out of asking Zimmerman that if he did not have the gun would he have gotten out of the car or would he even follow him from the car.  But if the law does not place any special responsibility on someone carrying a weapon to not follow or observe a person then where is the crime?


    Parent
    He doesn't mention (none / 0) (#68)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    the circling or doubling back in the NEN call.

    Parent
    He does mention (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by leftwig on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:15:34 PM EST
    Martin coming to check him out.  He then says he doesn't know what his deal is, asks when they can get an officer there and mentions that these a--holes always get away.  There is about a 45 second time from when he states that Martin is checking him out until he says he runs and I think these comments made during that time could easily have been made as Martin circled the vehicle.  Just because he didn't mention it to the dispatcher is not evidence that it didnt' happen.

    Parent
    Also.. How can Zimmerman be asked this.. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    if he, in the end, does not get on the stand.  This can likely only be made in opening or closing arguments, or by asking the opinion of other witnesses.

    Parent
    Anxiety/fear and responsibility (none / 0) (#124)
    by Lina Inverse on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    YMMV, but I certainly heard anxiety in Zimmerman's voice starting at a certain point after he got out of his vehicle.  However, as discussed elsewhere, this has no bearing on his claim of self-defense.

    But if the law does not place any special responsibility on someone carrying a weapon to not follow or observe a person then where is the crime?

    Why should the law place any special responsibility here?  The responsibility is attached to what you do with your weapon, and from his (written) account he did nothing wrong with it.

    Turning your question around, it is strongly advised that if you are carrying, that should not change your behavior.  I.e. if you wouldn't do a certain thing unarmed, being armed should not change that.

    It's a good policy, and one I follow except for being slightly more willing to go outside when it's dark.

    Parent

    where does stalking come from? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    He's not charged with stalking, it's not a word used in the criminal charge. or affidavit The state has said he profiled TM as a criminal and followed him.

    Parent
    The media (none / 0) (#200)
    by Kelwood on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:25:21 PM EST
    Has used the word stalking. A lot of people have used the word stalking when referring to the case. I think a lot of people don't understand that the word stalk has a legal definition that is not the same as their understanding of it. Stalking has been used synonymously with following and chasing. It's unfortunate that someone in the media hasn't come out and explained the difference. Or if they did I haven't seen it.

    Parent
    Inconsistencies, but why should they matter? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve27 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    The walkthru with D. Singleton does not match the 911 call all the time. Esp the "he's running" part of the call which I do not hear referenced in the interview. But following someone whether slightly or aggressively is not a predicate to manslaughter.  And if GZ does not remember everything about the fight, that does not implicate him either. A fight, esp one that was initiated by someone else and which you are losing is very traumatic. The court cannot rely on Zimmerman's account of why and when he drew his weapon. Martin started the fight. Martin was being aggresive towards Z at different times of the encounter.

    The One Clear Thing from the New Evidence (none / 0) (#70)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    is that the police, despite claims to the contrary, did a good job of investigation and interviewing.  The new prosecution team just seemed to decide to indict based on the same information as the first team that decided not to.  I find it very difficult to correlate the time lines and locations in the videos, written statement and the cellphone call to non emergency.  I am sure in the coming days, comparisons, perhaps in spread sheet form, will start to appear on the web.

    Probably we will never be sure of certain things, like what exactly were the actions and reactions that caused the fight to move from the T to near the utility cover on John's lawn.

    Serino Interview 3 on 2/29 does (none / 0) (#72)
    by JoeMenardo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    a good job of this.

    Parent
    Agreed.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    ...seems I was led to believe Lee and Wolfsinger pretty much took George out for pizza that night after they rubberstamped his use of force.

    Parent
    The prosecution has a radically different theory (none / 0) (#74)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    The new prosecution team adds two witnesses that were not used by SPD.  These two witnesses are DeeDee and Sybrina.  I'm not sure what the prosecution's theory of the events is, other than the prosecution contends that Zimmerman confronted Martin or initiated unlawful contact (DeeDee supplies evidence for this); and the prosecution contends that Martin is the one heard screaming for help.

    Certainly, which of the two is screaming for help is a HUGE difference, as SPD assigns that to Zimmerman, but Corey assigns it to Martin.

    Which makes it somewhat a mystery why Corey would say SPD did a good job, while at the same time asserting that the SPD blew such a fundamental finding.

    Parent

    I Just Don't See (none / 0) (#82)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    that Sybrina Fulton or DeeDee have anything of probative value and doubt that any identification of the audio screams will be allowed into trial.  If they try to use DeeDee, they have to contend with the fact that she said that Martin told her he was at or near his father's house at a point well before the start of the confrontation.  

    Parent
    Furthermore, pretty difficult to give credence (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    to two individuals who were not there and obviously are biased as a jury member.  Certainly, once under oath, all are to assume they are telling the truth, but they can really only be telling the truth about their opinions in this case.  Unless more evidence comes out proving whose voice was yelling for help and proving who initiated the contact, I see difficulty with their testimonies (unless the jury rules based upon emotions).

    About the voice heard yelling for help, it is possible they were both yelling.  When I listened I thought it might have been hearing two different voices, but what do I know!  Sorry for introducing speculation here.

    Parent

    I had the same thought (none / 0) (#118)
    by amateur on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    About the voice heard yelling for help, it is possible they were both yelling.  When I listened I thought it might have been hearing two different voices, but what do I know!  Sorry for introducing speculation here.

    It's possible both were yelling at any given time.


    Parent

    DeeDee can relate more than opinions (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lina Inverse on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:05:01 PM EST
    She can testify to what Martin said in their long phone conversation, but as you note, she wasn't there.

    Parent
    I should have been more clear (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    DeeDee can only relate her opinion as to who pushed whom.

    Parent
    her opinion on that (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:53:03 PM EST
    would not be admissible under any rule I can think of.

    Parent
    Zimmerman checked the body (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    Around 15:00 in the reenactment, Zimmerman confirms the witness claim that he checked the body after the altercation and gunshot.

    Girlfriend call (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    Ok, I will agree Trayvon initiated contact, but this sounds a bit different than GZ's story and changes things considerably.  Below is her take:

    She told investigators that she heard Trayvon ask, "What are you following me for?" The reply she heard was, "What are you doing around here?" The last words she said she heard Trayvon say after she said he was pushed or bumped were "Get off, get off."

    Sounds to me like the only other witness so to speak heard a decidedly different encounter.  

    How (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    does one distinguish the pusher and 'pushee' from sounds transmitted over a cell phone ?

    Zimmerman  gave a voluntary statement immediately following the incident. He had know way of knowing if the confrontation was witnessed. Yet he gave detailed statements. If he lied he risked contradiction from a reliable witness or a video recording.

    Dee Dee when she finally decided to come forward, was prepared by Martin attorney Crump before allowing the police to interview her

    Who would you find more credible? Is it close?

    Parent

    don't know (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    I would want to hear all the evidence before i determine credibility.

    Parent
    that argument cuts both ways (none / 0) (#199)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    O'Mara will apply the "you cannot really expect him to remember every detail after such a traumatic experience", and i find both arguments reasonable.  

    Parent
    lazy language (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    there were no witnesses to the verbal exchange, making her the only witness to the confrontation which at the heart of the matter.  "Get off, get off" sounds to me like GZ initiated, not TM.  

    Parent
    Dee Dee's testimony is severely (none / 0) (#84)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    flawed and riddled with inconsistencies. It shows obvious signs of coaching or being influenced by the media. I would be shocked if the prosecution even calls her to the stand.

    Parent
    is there a link to support? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:41:09 PM EST
    Deedee's problems (none / 0) (#173)
    by Sandbagger on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:36:20 PM EST
    Though I think that she has a lot to offer the prosecution here is a very good account of the many problems with her testimony. It is honest and I find it no bias.

    Parent
    There are other witnesses to the verbal exchange (none / 0) (#96)
    by leftwig on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    Zimmerman would be a witness to that and there are several witnesses that heard the early words.  I don't think any of those witnesses can say what words were spoken.

    Dee Dee and Zimmerman have different accounts of what words were spoken.  One piece of evidence that could be critical are the location of Martins headphones.  There are varying accounts from the police reports.  A few officers remarked that the headphones were found at MArtins side and others indicated they were in his pockets.  There were no evidence photographs released of the headphones and I assume if they were found on the ground that they would have been marked as separate exhibits and photographed.  Could have just been an oversight, but if the headphones were found in his pockets, it would be an indication that he had taken them out before the fight started and that the call with Dee Dee very well may already have ended before the two speak to each other (would also be an indication of Trayvon preparing for a confrontation).

    Parent

    thanks (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    i had not heard of any witnesses to the verbal altercation.  will search.

    Parent
    Error in distance? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    It seems like Zimmerman is signifigantly too close to the T in his reenactment.

    Is there a significant inconsistency (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    between the physical evidence & the account?

    why GZ did not go seek immediate medical (none / 0) (#116)
    by lily on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    attention and chose a wait and see approach on a MRI.

    Critics of GZ ignored the most likely reason which is cost, GZ explains this in the tape to a monitor.

    Serino decisions to include his pandering statement about if GZ did not leave his truck only underscore how much this case is based on public pressure and Serino career ambition is a climate where he boss was fired illegally.


    What is the link to Jeralyn's diagram to the ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    ... crime scene? I can't find it. I want to compare where TM's body is to GZ's youtube reenactment. Seems like GZ is closer to the T in his reenactment.

    there's one (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    here and here. But they weren't meant to be exact as to the body, just a map of the locations of the various houses and witnesses.

    This actual photo is probably better if you are looking for the distance between the T and the first and second house on the Twin Trees Lane side. Or this one.

    Parent

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#198)
    by magster on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:21:40 PM EST
    The farther away from the T, the worse for GZ and his story of "I was walking back to my truck."

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#226)
    by Sandbagger on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:05:21 PM EST
    First I must apologize but I made a couple of comments that stated "30 yards" and I meant to say "30 feet" Please delete as this is incorrect.

    But to your own diagrams it shows TM body quite far from where GZ says it was in his reenactment. Do you feel this is a problem for him during trial?

    Also one of the things that bugs me is that in some cases a defense lawyer has a client who has not made statements to the police or anyone else. In this case it seem that MOM has almost no leeway to manipulate the story being that it has been recorded in such detail. "IF" the prosecutions can shows enough inconsistency in this story, what course of action can MOM take?

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    Zimmerman was too close to the T in his reenactment. He was probably off by around 10 feet.

    Parent
    his keys (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Aghast inFL on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    His keys were dropped and marked virtually exactly where he showed the struggle began in the reenactment; for reference have a look at the photos the body was not nearly as far down the dog walk as many assert.
    If you do look at photos remember the concrete expansion joints are set at four foot intervals.

    Parent
    Dropped Keys? (none / 0) (#175)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:38:41 PM EST
    If he was hit with force, as his statements indicate, the keys could have been flung a considerable distance

    Parent
    "flung" ? (none / 0) (#185)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:59:31 PM EST
    Could you please articulate the scenario that would have the keys "flung" thru the air?

    Thanks

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#202)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:28:54 PM EST
    A is holding keys in his hand. Unexpectedly, B Strikes A with sufficient force to drive A off his feet and on to his back

    As B falls he either involuntarily relaxes his grip; or instinctively frees his hands to absorb the fall

    Because A is falling his arms reflexively jerk out attempting, maintain balance. The results the keys go flying

    I recall one Episode of COPS where a victim, held at gun point, delivered a single, brutal punch to his gun totting adversaries head.  

    The gun was recovered in the next lot after clearing a tall chain fence.

    Some readers may have witnessed similar incidents at Lacrosse and Hockey matches or other sporting events.

    Parent

    Sorry typo (none / 0) (#203)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:30:35 PM EST
    As A falls he either involuntarily relaxes his grip; or instinctively frees his hands to absorb the fall

    Parent
    Four feet or five? (none / 0) (#193)
    by MJW on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    If you do look at photos remember the concrete expansion joints are set at four foot intervals.

    I think that sidewalk joints are 5 feet apart.  The joints in front of my house are spaced at 4 feet, while some joints on a sidewalk just up the street are 5 feet.  When I visually compared the sidewalk in the pictures to those two sidewalks, it looked much more similar to the 5 foot spacing.  I also measured them, as best I could, using the Google map satellite, and they seemed to be 5 feet.

    Parent

    Yeah I noticed that too (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kyreth on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:12:51 PM EST
    but somehow I have a hunch when he was in the fight with TM he wasn't paying attention to how far from the T he was for future re-enactments.

    I'll need to look again, but I think there was another cement utility cover down by where the shooting actually happened, and there was one by where Zimmerman stopped, so he might have keyed off of it when trying to describe where they ended up.

    Parent

    A traumatic event, with dynamic movement.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:28:36 PM EST
    ...in a dark,  rainy neighborhood full of cookie cutter homes..

    yea...I'm guessing his perceptions were off a little bit but that's no deal breaker.

    When Madden pulls up the birds eye view so he can show where the player 'zigged' when he shoulda 'zagged', thats not the same point of view that the player in question was working with..

    We need to keep that in mind when we MMQB someones split second actions.

    Parent

    place of body is a hard fact (none / 0) (#179)
    by lawstudent on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:49:58 PM EST
    I agree that GZ's reenactment puts the body closer to the T than it was in reality, but the actual placement of the body is a cold, hard fact, that was witnessed by police that night (and others) and photographed.  Why would GZ lie about that?  Makes no sense.  

    The question that arises from this seemingly inconsistent piece of his story is how did he get from the punch at the T to the actual location of the body?  That seems to be an interesting question as it may provide some answers as to what exactly happened from the first punch to the gunshot.

    Parent

    Different state of mind (none / 0) (#186)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    I think in the walk through, Zimmerman is focused more on what he is saying in answer to questions, and less on precise location details.  Most of his location details are in response to questions.

    The investigators don't seem bothered that the description Zimmerman is giving of the flow of the altercation doesn't include accounting for "exact" distances.  The general account is Martin closed distance; brief exchange of words; hunt for cell phone; blow to the face, but it didn't floor Zimmerman; some pushing and shoving as Martin tries to obtain decisive control and Zimmerman tries to make some distance; then Martin on top throwing face blows, slamming head, but Zimmerman able to coax some body motion even during that.

    The distance from the T to the body must be short enough that the push/shove get away action can reasonably cover it in the time span involved between the punch to the face and the first screams for help.

    Parent

    Telling a story most favorable to himself (none / 0) (#192)
    by amateur on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:14:17 PM EST
    I think many inconsistencies can be explained by the fact that he's telling the story in the most favorable light possible to himself.  That doesn't necessarily mean he's lying, just that he's skewing things to his favor.  In the re-enactment, he describes a moving struggle where he was pushing Trayvon, presumably because he'd punched him, but his own pushing is minimized, as is the distance of the movement.  Likewise he never mentions TM running in any of the interviews and consistently says he got out of his car only to find a street sign -- which is completely contradicted by his own recorded call to the NEN.

    I'm sure there are many elements of his statements that are true, but he's definitely leaving things out that he thinks would be bad for him, and probably embellishing things he thinks will help him.  None of that means it wasn't self defense, but I wouldn't take it as the gospel.

    Parent

    Forward, slowly. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:06:11 PM EST
    You should also keep in mind that they were slow-walking the discovery process to let the dumpster fire die out a bit before adding new fuel.

    Zimmerman's written statement (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:03:00 PM EST
    Here's a copy of Zimmerman's written statement as I transcribed it.

    In August of 2011 my neighbors house was broken into while she was home with her infant son. The intruders attempted to attack ker and her child; however, SPD reported to the scene of the crime and the robber fled. My wife saw the intruders running from the home and became scared of the rising crime within our neighborhood. I and my neighbor formed a "Neighborhood Watch Program." We were instructed by SPD to call the non-emergency line if we saw anything suspicious and 911 if we saw a crime in progress.

    Tonight, I was on my way to the grocvery store when I saw a male approximatly 5'11'' to 6'2' casually walking in the rain looking into homes. I pulled my vehicle over and called SPD non-emergency phone number, I told the dispatcher what I had witnesses, the dispatcher took note of my location and the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk. As the dispatcher was asking me for the exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness and circled my vehicle. I could not hear if he said anything. The suspect once again disappeared between the back of some houses. The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispacther asked me for a description and the direction the suspct went. I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign and the direction the suspect was. The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.

    As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, "You got a problem?" I said "No." The suspect said "You do now."

    As I looked(?) and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled "Help" several times. The suspect told me "Shut the f*ck up" and I tried to sit up right. The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell, "Help." Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continued to yell "Help." As I slid, the suspect covered my  mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say "You're gonna die tonight motherf*cker." I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said "You got me."

    At this point I slid out from underneath him and got on top of the suspect holding his hands away from his body. An onlooker appeared and asked me if I was OK. I said "No." He said, "I'm calling 911." I said "I don't need you to call 911. I already called them. I need you to help me restrain this guy." At this point a SPD officer arrived and asked, "Who shot him?" I said, "I did," and I placed my hands on top of my head and told the officer where on my person my firearm was holstered. The officer handcuffed me and disarmed me. The officer then placed me in the back of vehicle.

    Feel free to use, publish, edit, mock, etc without attribution...

    I have a copy, delete without comment if neccessary.

    Here's what really bothers me, and maybe (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:36:35 PM EST
    I just have to file it under 'Horrible, but not illegal'. The point where GZ claims to be fearful for his life is when he knows TM sees the gun- the gun that would not have been there if GZ had not brought it. So how exactly did having the gun make anyone safer? I can even see where it could have been used effectively at some point as a threat. If indeed TM started the conversation, why not tell him to back off, you have a gun?

    The whole thing was so pointless, from start to finish.

    Parent

    I have a gun, and by the way the police are on (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    the way. Why say you have 'no problem' when you have so obviously been following the kid that he noticed it even though supposedly high and casing houses in the dark and the rain? What was lying to TM supposed to accomplish?

    Sigh...I remain disgusted.

    Parent

    Zimmerman is alive and not crippled.... (3.50 / 2) (#228)
    by Lina Inverse on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:08:33 PM EST
    So how exactly did having the gun make anyone safer?

    What was going to stop Martin's assault on him?  Here's the relevant section from his written statement:


    The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell, "Help." Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continued to yell "Help." As I slid, the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say "You're gonna die tonight motherf*cker."

    Would Martin have been satisfied by only rendering him unconscious and very possibly crippling him in the process?

    I can even see where it could have been used effectively at some point as a threat. If indeed TM started the conversation, why not tell him to back off, you have a gun?

    According to Zimmerman Martin didn't say anything prior to his first punch that would allow the former to threaten him with the gun.  We're not allowed to do that absent greater provocation, it's assault.

    And you can imagine the screams of outrage if Zimmerman had done that....

    Parent

    impossible for TM to speak following the gunshot? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Philly on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:18:25 PM EST
    The autopsy report has details on the injuries, but I don't see any claim there that both lungs would have collapsed instantly, or that it would have been impossible for TM to make a final utterance.  Are you citing a medical expert or just an opinion copy/pasted from liberalforum.org?

    philly, the comment (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:56:59 PM EST
    by Sandbagger you are responding to was deleted for stating his opinion that GZ is lying as fact. So was another comment by Sandbagger claiming evidence against GZ is "irrefutible." Commenters may not misrepresent their opinion on disputed or unproven matters as fact.  

    Parent
    Not in the medical examiner's report (none / 0) (#178)
    by Lina Inverse on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:49:10 PM EST
    This appears to be the medical examiner's report.

    Contrary to what you report CBS saying, his lungs didn't fill with blood, the pleural cavities filled with blood, of course collapsing the lungs.  I think that would take a little while.

    There's also no mention of other damage to the left lung.  While my knowledge of this sort of medicine and anatomy is very limited, nothing in the report suggests to me that Martin would immediately be rendered speechless.  I am of course not inclined to trust a MSM interpretation of the report.

    Exposure (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    That claim will expose Zimmerman to the state's experts, though.

    It'anecdotete, but from my experience I know it's not unusual for a deer hunter to find a thumb-sized bit of lung tissue in the blood trail.

    OK - he's gotta be close....

    Ow...wait...here's another...

    Parent

    You are correct, (none / 0) (#196)
    by Sandbagger on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    I meant to say 30 feet. Sorry. I was writing two things at the same time. You are welcome to delete this.

    Still, TM died immediately, he did not get up and walk, even GZ says this. The location of the body is not were he said it was. This would suggest that more happened that GZ is willing to admit to.

    That is a problem I have too (none / 0) (#206)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    Did GZ end up on his back after one punch to the face? I suppose I would. I just thintherefore likely there was some pushing and shoving first.

    Ugh, dang autocorrect. (none / 0) (#207)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    Should be 'I just think it is more likely there was some pushing and shoving leading up to the punch.. Didn'tt some of the witnesses describe a struggle that took place over a little bit of distance?

    Parent
    What about the 7-11 bag (none / 0) (#234)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:59:54 PM EST
    How did it get out of TMs pocket?

    The only way I could think of how it ended up on the sidewalk is if GZ was trying to apprehend TM and grab onto him ("apprehend" type actions/movements).  Instead of grabbing him squarely, he grabbed the bag (possibly bag with can inside of it) and it got pulled out as TM ran (or walked) a little further.

    [Perhaps this is where Dee Dee heard "Get off.  Get off."?]

    I would be interested in hearing what others think re how the 711 bag was removed from TMs pocket.

    ----------

    Re the ear buds mentioned in other comments: I would think if TM was pushed or shoved hard enough, the ear buds would fall out of place.  (Not so sure they would necessarily fall if TM did the shoving.)  If they fall towards the ground (not sure how long the cords are) but I would think Dee Dee would be able to hear the grass in the sense of/ due to TM/GZ in motion, walking on the grass.  Additionally, I don't see any real meaning if the ear buds were found in TM's pockets.  Once they fell, it seems reasonable he would put them in his pocket so they wouldn't get damaged (as opposed to his planning to attack GZ).

    My experience with cell phones is they are fairly sensitve to sound.  

    ----------------

    Also: I've not come across any information (including comments) re the significance of the first aid kit,i.e., whose was it: medics, GZ, a neighbor?

    GZ testifying question (none / 0) (#238)
    by marvc on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 12:24:35 AM EST
    I read this blog daily, and especially love the fair minded way Jeralyn is approaching this topic. Thanks for the excellent coverage and treatment of an indubitably contentious subject, which differs markedly from what I read in other blogs.

    That being said, I have a question about the future trial. If GZ's veracity is key (along with the supporting evidence, of course), what happens in a case like this if GZ does not take the stand? Would this be likely to prejudice a jury if much of the defendant's side of the story is the bulk of the evidence with which to make a determination? Since TM's "side" of the story is obviously unable to be put into evidence to counter that of GZ's, it would seem to me that a failure to take the stand by GZ could be seen by jurors as odd. I can understand why the defense counsel would not want him to take the stand, but since the only person who can testify as to all the events of that evening is GZ, would his failure to testify be problematic?

    Deer Hunting (none / 0) (#239)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 12:40:29 AM EST
    I've never seen one where the animal continued to leave tissue, lung or otherwise, behind on the blood trail as it tried to run away from the point of initial bullet contact.

    Hrmm...we're probably getting somewhat off topic, but next time you are tracking and you run across foamy or bright pink blood, take a second to look through it. You will sometimes find little (or sometimes not so little) peices of spongy lung tissue. It's not ejecta, it usually comes out of the mouth. You can also find the same if you closely examine the carcass once it's found.

    At any rate, I do think that Zimmerman's assertion that Martin spoke/cursed after the fatal shot will expose him to the state's expert testimony. That's my layperson opinion, BTW. Just to be clear.

    @ Lina Inverse: Thanks for the ME's report. (none / 0) (#240)
    by Mitch Guthman on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 12:49:07 AM EST
    (Sorry but my ability to reply seems to have vanished)

    Thanks very much for the report which I glanced  at during dinner.  It seems very incomplete, particularly about the fatal wound which seem to have received only a limited description.  Also, there were no photographs of the body and in particular there were no photographs of the fatal wound prior to it being explored, no description of what was found in the wound when it was explored and no photographs of the various stages of exploration.  These should be a part of the report.  I have never seen an autopsy report that didn't include photographs, especially of a gunshot wound.

    Two things that jumped out at me during my quick reading of the report:  

    1.  If I read it correctly, the fatal wound is surrounded by a fairly tight pattern of soot and stippling (I believe the report is indicating a spread of about 2" x 2").  Strictly from memory, I think this might suggest that the fatal bullet was probably fired from a fairly close range but maybe not a contact wound.

    But does that help Zimmerman or send him to prison?  I don't know.  I think it depends on whether the ME and firearms examiner say this is consistent with a contact wound.  If they do, then he's probably home free because the physical evidence would be corroborating him.  

    If not, then we probably have a much better idea of why the DA filed 2nd degree murder.  

    2.  We now know that there was no exit wound and we also know why.   The fatal bullet apparently struck bone, fragmented and none of the fragments had the correct direction and/or sufficient kinetic force to exit Martin's body.  We won't know what this means until we have the report of the firearms examiner, who will presumably be making calculations and running tests  using similar weapons and similar ammunition (from the same batch, if he can find it).  The report may help us to understand where Zimmerman was in relation to Martin at the moment the fatal shot was fired.

    Some remaining questions (off the top of my head---does anybody have the answers?):

    1.  We know from the autopsy report that some gunshot residue reached Martin's body.  What else do we know about the pattern of stippling/residue and what does it tell us about the range from which Zimmerman fired?  

    2.  What do we know about the wound itself?  The autopsy report is not as detailed as I would have expected about the surface of Martin's body.  I assume that a pathologist trying to figure out the range would be more interested in the shape of the wound and whether there was any stretching or tearing of the skin.  

    3.  What is the condition of Martin's skin near the wound?  Were his chest hairs singed?  Was his skin also burned?  

    4.  Does the ME's use of the terms "stippling"  and "soot" indicate that the particles of residue were not driven deeply into the skin as one might expect for a contact wound or even a near-contact shot?  (Again, finding a TL reader who is a forensic pathologist would be helpful).

    5.  What materials were driven or deposited into the wound and were the materials found consistent with a contact or near-contact wound?

    6.  What does the forensic examination of Zimmerman's gun reveal?  Is there any of Martin's blood or tissue on the gun?

    7.  What does an examination of Martin's clothing reveal about the range from which the fatal bullet was fired?  The muzzle flash of a gun pressed hard against the victim's body generates a lot of heat---clothing is often burned or melted.  Do we know if that happened?  What does expert analysis of the textile fabrics (the T-shirt and the hooded sweatshirt) tell us about the range?

    8.  I'm too lazy to do this but from the various reconstructions, do we have any idea of  of what the angle of entry was---this seemed unclear from the ME's report.  Do we have expert opinion on what angle would be consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman?  Is the angle of entry rather cursorily depicted in the autopsy report consistent with this?  Does it corroborate Zimmerman or refute him?

    Just a few questions.  I haven't been following developments so if anybody has actual answers (preferably with a way to look at the reports), I would be happy to have them.  But these are the types of things that I personally think will be determinative of whether Zimmerman walks or fries.

    Question... (none / 0) (#244)
    by Mary2012 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 03:10:27 AM EST
    I watched the re-enactment video and I'm even more puzzled now as to why GZ made no references, nor requests that an ambulance might be needed (for TM).  

    I'm more puzzled because it appears TM wasn't killed instantly and yet GZ makes no mention regarding TM's welfare at this point, only that someone help him (GZ) detain the guy until the police arrived.  GZ came across as being very cold (-hearted) to me.  

    I also noticed during Officer Singleton's interrogation of GZ that he still believed TM to be aged "early 20s/ late teens".  "Early 20s" is not close in age to 28 (GZs age), imo; there's a big difference between a 20 yo and a 25 yo and still a 28 yo.  If I remember correctly, there's a lot of growth in each of these stages, even year by year.

    I've not yet listened to all the other statements but does he eventually say in any of his statements (as he would later claim at the bond hearing that) he thought TM was close in age to himself (GZ)?

     

    Good questions - Mitch Guthman (none / 0) (#245)
    by lore hahn on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 03:11:36 AM EST
    What does the forensic examination of Zimmerman's gun reveal?  Is there any of Martin's blood or tissue on the gun?

    First of all, I was highly irritated by the forensic examination, especially concerning TM's body, but this was my first report. I think, at least concerning the documents we have so far, they only looked for bloodstains on TM's and GZ's shirts/jackets. No forensics concerning the gunshot traces, that I can remember.

    The Gun - at least one, two, three
    If I remember well Jeralyn considered them supportive of Zimmerman's narrative. She will forgive me, if I err. I am doubtful and admittedly thought that our forensics would be much better, but there you go:

    page 105f discovery (Zimmerman_discovery.pdf:

    DMS - 21A - grip
    DMS - 21B - trigger
    DMS - 21C - slide
    DMS - 21D - holster

    grip "chemical indications for presence of blood ... demonstrated at least two individuals"
    DNA profile consistent with GZ, TM is excluded.

    trigger "Due to ... limited nature of DNA ... data not interpretable."

    slide "Due to ... limited DNA results ... data insufficient for inclusion purposes. Results consistent with ... presence of at least one male individual."
    No determination of if GZ or TM.

    holster "... presence of at least three individuals. A complete DNA profile for the major contributor could be determined.
    ...major DNA profile is consistant with ... profile of" G
    ... DNA profile for minor contributor(s) could not be determined.
    No determination can be made regarding the possible contributions of" TM

    Besides maybe we have the same problem, answer buttons have again disappeared.

    Mitch Gutman - Cites for you (none / 0) (#247)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:20:34 AM EST
    There is a post above that points out the investigation included analysis of the distance of the barrel of the gun from Martin's clothing, as the clothing also had a bullet hole in it.

    The evidence used to establish distance between the gun muzzle and the skin is altered when clothing is interposed between the gun muzzle and the skin.  

    Your No.7: Page 122 of the 183 page document dump conclude that the sweatshirt and hoodie have evidence of a contact shot.

    You didn't ask, yet, but Page 124 - no gunpowder residue on Zimmerman's outerwear

    Your No. 8: Page 127 - bullet track is straight front to back.

    seems wrong (none / 0) (#248)
    by lore hahn on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:29:06 AM EST
    and indicated how the sidewalk at the T was in the back of the houses so he couldn't see an address

    This is not at all as I remember it. He points to the houses on the left on Twin Trees, where he supposedly parked his car, which indeed don't face the street. What about the houses on the right, are they facing the street with their backyard too? But this happened in Twin Trees. I didn't understand at all, since at least the house at the corner next to the cut through faces with the garages and thus front Twin Trees. So why walk all the way to Retreat View Circle?

    And again, what for, if not to search for TM to give a more precise number for his location, as he did on 02/02/12? And that incident is as vividly on his mind as it is on mine for longer now.

    It's not where his car is parked, and he says he intended to return to his car. Thus it must be about Trayvon. Problem is he saw him walk down the T, and in the re-enactment he suggested he simply choose the house straight ahead on the other side of RVC.

    What for?

    I need earphones for the Serino interview.

    You gonna die tonight, MF, yes sure.

    his lungs didn't fill with blood, (none / 0) (#249)
    by lore hahn on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 06:12:48 AM EST
    seemingly at least the  right lower part of it. I have no idea about the consequences, but the callers that watched the scene didn't witness Trayvon walking around after the shot. Quite the opposite.

    Lina Inverse:

    page 122 (Zimmerman_discovery.pdf)

    Path of the projectile: Skin, left anterior 5th intercostal space, pericadial sac, right ventricle of heart, right lower lobe of lung.

    ... right lower lobe of lung with bilateral pleural hemorrhage

    *****************
    Would Martin have been satisfied by only rendering him unconscious and very possibly crippling him in the process?

    Yes, tonight you die, MF. Motive?

    What animal this 17 year old must be?

    G + female cop hard to hear (none / 0) (#254)
    by lore hahn on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:44:50 AM EST
    thanks, Annie, so it's not just my system. I'll get earphones now. I am told that helps.

    ..............................................

    marvc:

    Thanks for the "homie" clarification.  Interesting although urban dictionary has this about cracker:

    Originally the white slave driver because he would "crack" the whip, hence the noun cracker.
    Yo homey pick the cotton faster cuz here comes ole Mr.Cracker with his whip!

    Not that I believe much of what GZ tells us  Trayvon said. What about the verbal clash? I must have missed his explanation.

    .................................................

    You got me

    Come to think about it? George Zimmerman's Trayvon Martin is quite loquacious, up to threatening to kill him. But what does Georgie actually say, besides playing the Master of Feint?

    I have no problem!

    I think I like some people in the SPD, e.g. Chris Serino, the ladies too, or old John Batchelor, the Serino tapes are definitively interesting,  I need earphones.

    reply to Lina (post #255) (none / 0) (#258)
    by expy on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 08:43:11 AM EST
    I have no idea, but Zimmerman can "take the stand" without being subject to cross examination at the trial simply by introducing all his contemporaneous statements (which include some hostile cross examination) ... and since they were made right after the shooting, I at least would give them stronger weight than anything he might say many months later.

    Unless Florida has some weird rules of evidence, Zimmerman would not be able to introduce his own prior statements without testifying.  The prior statements are hearsay.  I certainly don't know of any way that Zimmerman could introduce them on his own if the prosecution elects not to use them.  

    The prosecution can introduce statements of defendants if they are "admissions against interest" or confessions -- which is an exception to the hearsay rule.  Obviously Zimmerman did not "confess" - but he does "admit" to a number of damaging things, such as admitting to having been the shooter, and his own account of his walk up and down the dog path could be taken as an admission supporting the prosecution case. (He says he was looking for a house number, but his subjective intent in walking is a different thing from the fact that he covered a certain path).

    reply to heidelja and Zeitgeist observations (none / 0) (#259)
    by Lina Inverse on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:16:56 AM EST
    heidelja: While others preceded them (e.g. Washington state in the early '60s, and Vermont has never required a licence to carry concealed), Florida started the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes.  It is a theoretical possibility to get a license in every state except Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey, 38 states are unquestioned shall issue and 2 shall issue in practice, plus many of the more rural counties of California and New York.  This covers the majority of the nation's population.

    What's particularly relevant to Florida, according to Wikipedia referencing a state report that's a dead link, is that Florida had 843,463 licensed permit holders as of July 31, 2011.  That's 4.4% of the population based on the census of the same year, and a higher proportion of the male population.  With shall issue being the law for a quarter century, it's entirely mainstream in the state.

    I would also add to people who think it's "off" to carry a gun when you're going to a store at night ... well, those of us who carry don't have the same view.

    Speaking only for myself, I simply carry every time I step out the door, unless I'm going to a prohibited location.  Perhaps it was because I was a Boy Scout, "Be Prepared" and all that.  I live in a city where there's so little violent crime I'm probably only at risk when I go to the bank (although it has been noted that Zimmerman might have planned to go to an ATM before or after his trip to the store), but I'd rather have the gun and never need it than not have it when I desperately need it.

    This is also probably colored by my college experience, where I was next to several very high crime rate areas.  Serious situational awareness plus I think projecting a "you don't want to attack me" attitude avoided a handful of incidents for me, but I had friends who got mugged and/or assaulted, and it has been sufficiently bad at times that a student was killed in broad daylight right in front of the main library (by a local white high school sociopath, for what that's worth).  And this despite a very serious, well staffed and professional campus police force.

    As for Zimmerman's behavior that night prior to the confrontation with Martin, I'm of mixed feelings about it.  His post-shooting experience is a classic, albeit extreme example of why many if not most concealed  carriers avoid doing that sort of thing.  On the other hand, I don't live in a city with a really "bad part of town" and with that much violent crime, or a neighborhood "under siege" after the start of the Great Recession, and I'm loathe to "abandon the streets to the criminals".

    We should think really hard about policy changes that might move us back to the mess of the "Dirty Harry" era, and to finish with our host's major area of interest, the counter-reaction to a sharp rise in crime would not be good for criminal defendants.

    I am uneducated on hearsay (none / 0) (#261)
    by Lina Inverse on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:42:20 AM EST
    expy: I did not know that, but I might have weaseled out by qualifying it by "subject to cross examination at trial" in a free wheeling manner.  How much cross examination would he be subject to if he's just on the stand to attest to "yes, I did write that" and "yes, that's me in the video"?  How damaging might that be, especially if he refuses to elucidate on them?

    Also, how would the video be hearsay?  I don't know, IANAL and a little time with Wikipedia did not entirely clear this up, but, it would seem to me that it speaks for itself, and I doubt the prosecution would deny it was him in it.  Also, how is his written statement hearsay when it has a section below his signature saying "Sworn to and subscribed before me the [date], a signature and below it "Law Enforcement Officer or Notary"?

    I gather from my quick reading of Wikipedia that it  depends on what the introduction of the statement is intended to do and I can see how he might be forced to defend it in detail; I just don't know how this sort of thing works and hope I never have to learn all this for real, although a pointer to a reference that makes this more clear would be appreciated.

    I ask all this because when he makes his affirmative defense of self-defense, the consistency of his multiple initial statements would seem to me to be helpful, and a lack thereof would be pounced upon by the prosecution.

    Ah, here's why I'd like to learn about hearsay (none / 0) (#262)
    by Lina Inverse on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:49:38 AM EST
    What's been related indicates that saying nothing to the police after a self-defense shooting is wise, if you can't in practice safely use what you said back then in your defense at a trial but the prosecution can use it against you....

    I gather that the outcome of a whole lot of trials seems to depend on what's allowed to be entered as evidence.

    Introduction of facts at Dennis Hearing (none / 0) (#263)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    I believe Zimmerman can introduce facts at the Dennis hearing (SYG hearing, if you prefer) via a sworn Motion.  This can be how he establishes his claim to self defense immunity.  That the facts are introduced via sworn statement does not preclude those facts from being negatived or impeached by testimony offered by the state.

    I think it is obvious that there may be some give and take in a Dennis hearing, and depending on what the state claims for truth (e.g., something the state brings up, that is not covered in the four corners of the sworn statement), Zimmerman may elect to take the stand, or be forced to.  But I don't believe he is required to take the stand to make his case, in detail, at the outset.

    Probabilities. (none / 0) (#266)
    by Tamta on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:12:31 AM EST
    Why was not a reconstruction done as opposed to or prior to a re-reenactment?

    It seems something more scientific was warranted than GZ doing a walk-through/talk through with investigators?

    By the way, is anyone else unable to reply directly to a comment?

    Context (none / 0) (#267)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    So, as a casual observer this indicates to me that the SPD believe GZ's story and still believed it as late as 2 April.  Zimmerman is arrested only 10 days later by IMO a politically motivated Special Prosecutor who had no intention of finding anything else to the contrary.

    DeeDee's remarks indicate that TM had made it back or close to his destination which in my mind destroys the notion that there is a continuing "chasing" or "persuing" of TM by GZ.

    Two more points: Gilbreath ( who signed the PC Affidavit) on the stand 4/20 states that he has "nothing" to contradict GZ's assertion that he was walking back to his truck.

    Brandy Green's bizarre comment made to Fox 35 TV on 2/27--"I live other there, he was sitting on the porch and this man killed him".  NEVER explained and NEVER brought up on any talking head chat shows that I've seen.  Did someone ELSE see TM sitting on Brandy's porch talking to DeeDee on the phone and then tell BG this?  Seems logical to me

    First of all GZ saw Trayvon LEAVE the back yard area and walk toward GZ's car. Trayvon then ran back toward the backyard area with GZ running behind him. TM did not have time to make it to Brandy's. He emerged from the shadows/busehes so it would seem he hid there.
    Dee Dee would have no way of discerning
    how close "close" was anyway.

    Brandy's remark about the porch seems be a "I can see him now" type of statement, not a recollection of the night before.

    200 Comment limit (none / 0) (#268)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    Once the comment count reaches 200, the "reply" function is terminated.

    I suppose a reconstruction wasn't done, because the police felt the squishy evidence in hand was sufficient to reach a legal conclusion.  It may be that the squishyness of the evidence doesn't admit a reconstruction.  The FBI couldn't determine whose voice was yelling "help," just to pick one element that seems to evade reconstruction.

    The legal issue can be resolved without any more reconstruction than is facilitated by forensic and eyewitness evidence in hand.  Zimmerman's state of mind can't be found in a reconstruction.

    On hearsay (none / 0) (#270)
    by expy on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    Lina, you suggested that Zimmerman ought to be able to introduce evidence of his prior, out-of-court statements (in writing & recorded) so that he could get his story in and avoid cross-examination.

    That's precisely [i]why[/i] it is hearsay, and ordinarily not admissible.  

    "Hearsay" is any statement made by someone who is not in court to testify, under oath, and be cross-examined at that time.  

    There is a long list of hearsay "exceptions", but every exception shares the characteristic of having something about it that would tend to make it more reliable and trustworthy than just any statement.

    Zimmerman does not have to testify to anything at trial, and if he chooses not to testify, no one can hold that against him or draw any adverse inference -- but unless the prosecution chooses to introduce the statements that make out his defense as admissions in support of their case, that is going to be the only possible way he can get the jury to hear his story.  

    And I believe that a stand-your-ground hearing is also testimonial -- that is, requiring actual witness testimony, not affidavits.  Putting forth facts in a declaration attached to a motion does not avoid the need to prove up those facts by admissible evidence in a hearing on the motion. The defendant is under no obligation to testify there, either... but he does have the burden of coming forward with evidence at that hearing, and  absent other direct witnesses, I don't see how his lawyer proves the case.  

    I know you all want to keep discussing (none / 0) (#272)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    this, but given that the 200-comment limit was reached some time ago - disabling the "Reply" feature - you might want to take this to the open thread from the other night - it has plenty of comment space.

    I think at this point you are risking deletions, so just a suggestion.

    Thanks Anne. (none / 0) (#273)
    by Tamta on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 11:02:37 AM EST


    On hearsay (none / 0) (#274)
    by Lina Inverse on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    expy: Thanks!  Your summation makes this more clear.

    I guess my only quibble relates to this:

    There is a long list of hearsay "exceptions", but every exception shares the characteristic of having something about it that would tend to make it more reliable and trustworthy than just any statement.

    In that I think contemporaneous statements and the like have more weight than ones made months later.  But that of course doesn't mean, to take this case as an example, that Zimmerman shouldn't be cross examined upon introduction of them.  As cboldt said, "Heresay is disfavored at trial, because it deprives the jury or judge of an opportunity to judge the credibility of the witness, in person."

    Although I'll note his comment about regretting talking to the police is complicated; initially, it turned out to be the right thing, the state declined to prosecute.  This of course changed drastically when it became a cause célèbre.

    So, as a someone licensed to carry concealed, it sounds like unless you can thread the needle as Zimmerman first did, if you can afford to competently defend yourself you do yourself no favors making initial statements to the authorities without benefit of counsel.  Stay silent (I was advised by one instructor to only insist to the police that they charge the other with attempted murder), let the other facts speak for themselves, and make the state prove its case.  (Don't know about Ohio where the burden of proof is on the defendant.)

    Syntactical schema... (none / 0) (#276)
    by Beasts of England on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    Using 'syntactical schema' as an assessment of phrases possibly uttered by Trayvon is imprecise.  The correct vocabulary could include 'lexicon', 'dialect' or 'vernacular'.  Your evaluation does not concern syntax, nor is it a function of syntactical schema.

    (I'm new here, too - glad you decided to sign up!)


    this thread is closed (none / 0) (#281)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    New thread here.

    Hearsay (none / 0) (#282)
    by MJW on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    Expy does an excellent job of explaining the hearsay rules.

    Lina: In that I think contemporaneous statements and the like have more weight than ones made months later.

    That's certainly true, but not enough to make the contemporaneous statement qualify as a hearsay exception.  There are two closely related exceptions, called in Florida law "excited utterance" and "spontaneous statement."  An excited utterance is a statement made shortly after an unusual event occurs, while the speaker is still in an excited emotional state.  So if someone runs into a room and screams "Al just shot Bob!" that would be admissible.  A spontaneous statement is a statement made while an unusual event is occurring, by speaker in an excited emotional state.  So if someone in another room screams "Al's fixin' to shoot Bob!" that would be admissible.  I believe the federal rules of evidence allow a statement made while the event is concurring to be admissible even if it isn't made in an excited emotional state.  The idea behind both hearsay exceptions is that the speaker probably won't have time to think through the statement in order to come up with a falsehood.  Obviously, a person giving a statement to the police has time to come up with a story.

    Expy: And I believe that a stand-your-ground hearing is also testimonial -- that is, requiring actual witness testimony, not affidavits.

    I agree, and cite McDaniel v. State in support.

    That's a 2nd District Court of Appeals case.  One thing I recently learned is that under Florida's court system, a DCA decision is binding on all lower courts, unless there's a contrary opinion from a different district.  If there are contrary opinions by district courts, lower courts courts are bound by the opinion in their district.  Presumably, lower courts in other districts can choose which opinion to follow, though I'm not certain.  In any event, I believe trial courts are currently bound by McDaniel v. State, since I have found no other cases addressing that specific issue.

    @ Cylinder, (none / 0) (#283)
    by Mitch Guthman on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:46:45 PM EST

    Thanks for the link to the reports.  I skimmed them last night.  Are you sure that these are the actual reports and not just summaries?  The report from the firearms examiner was very sketchy.  It didn't say what tests they did or what they found, nothing except saying that it was a contact wound.  I hope they did everything they were supposed to do because I suspect the prosecution is stuck with it being a contact wound, in which case it looks like Zimmerman will regrettably walk.

    As far as the following aspect goes... (none / 0) (#284)
    by turbo6 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:36:13 PM EST
    I think unequivocally GZ got out of the truck simply to maintain a visual and nothing else. Obviously based on what transpired, in his statements he wants to downplay this because quite frankly he likely didn't plan on this becoming a life altering event, rather being a potential aid in police apprehending a suspicious person.

    Nonetheless, in his mind, based on what he was observing, Trayvon running away from him was an admission of guilt and basically validated his claim and with police already on their way, it seemed plausible that keeping a sight on TM for the next few minutes would have allowed to police to swoop in and get to the bottom of this.

    Its funny how the mind works sometimes, when faced with a possibly hazardous situation sometimes you simply make bad choices, poor decisions, sacrificing your safety all in name of protecting something you hold dear. For GZ that was in the neighborhood he lived in.

    A few years back, late one night my wife awoke me to tell me she thought someone was poking around inside my car out front in the driveway. I peeked around from the upstairs window and vaguely saw some shadows moving about. I had no idea what I saw but regardless ran outside immediately to find several people in a car backing up and making their way out of my driveway.

    I started running after the car in hopes of getting a plate number, but realized I didn't have my cell phone with me anyway and that the car was out of my sight before I could get any of license plate number. Returning back to my house, I checked out my car only to find the ignition torn out, sitting on the front seat.

    My wife wasn't quite as upset that my car was nearly stolen, more so that I undeniably put myself in harms way by so quickly running outside the house to confront these people.

    Not that these two situations are that similar but, when you have an indication that something is awry, sometimes all logic escapes you. In hindsight, I could have been very well beat to death, or shot outside my house in my attempt to "get these bad guys". However that didn't cross my mind at the time.

    In George's situation, clearly the catalyst here was him seeing TM running away from him. In retrospect for him as well, I doubt he had any idea of what was about to unfold as he ventured out into the darkness.